Infinity engine question

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Am I missing something? What do people see in this that I don't?

 

I'm always wary of these type of threads. Justifying why you don't like certain games with a long opening post and reasons why you don't like these games then asking a question at the end with a "what am I missing?". You've already convinced yourself in the OP despite what anyone says. And you've already had responses to this, even though you're now debating those responses with your own justifications. So what is the point of this thread? Especially if you're going to debate people's responses with your own reasons why you don't like the IE games. It seems like a pointless thread.

[khalil]

I'm hoping that something magical will happen and I'll start liking rtwp or something, I dunno.

It's not like combat is really that central to RPGs anyway. They live and die by the story, and given the writing staff on this game we know that'll be good.

Plus, it could be worse.

It could be a romance thread.

Edited March 18, 2014 by khalil

[Lephys]

I hear ya on reactions, Jarrakul.

 

I think the ability to react (in a limited fashion, mind you) makes turn-based combat a LOT better. Look at almost anything turn-based that's really good, and it's typically got some form of interrupt: Magic the Gathering has instant spells, D&D has free actions (most PnP rulesets have something similar), etc.

 

A great example of what I like to see in turn-based combat is stuff like Overwatch, which most games have now (that deal heavily with ranged combat). My only complaint is... why can you basically have a prepared action to use during the enemy's turn, but your characters can ONLY spaztically shoot the first thing they see? In XCOM, you can have two people on overwatch, watching the same corner, and when a little piddly 4HP alien comes around the corner, they both unload their entire magazines on it, even if the very first bullet hit it. If the game's cool with you saving your attack for the enemy's turn, in a prepared fashion, then why can't you at least get some kind of prompt when your character is ABLE to take their shot? Then, you, the player, can just be like "Nah." Or at least set a priority/order to it. If there are 5 enemies in that building, you might want a lot of people to take their shots whenever any number of those foes emerge into sight, if they're coming through the opening you're watching. But, that doesn't mean you want everyone to shoot the first thing that pops out. It's not like you'd just be giving the player completely free control over when and whom to shoot on not-the-PC's turn. If you opt to not take your shot, then you just don't get to attack that enemy, and you have to hope another one comes around. At the very least, you should be able to have someone only shoot if the first person's overwatch doesn't kill the thing or something.

 

A little control like that over reactions would be lovely. Another idea is maybe a branch reaction? I wouldn't want any more than 2 options, but, maybe:

 

"If I get attacked this round, do this. Otherwise, do this." Or other stuff, like heal-overwatch, etc. Just... conditional reactions. If the game's okay with you spending your action-time during the enemy's turn, then I don't see why it matters what you can do, as long as you can't just elaborately target whoever you want, or reposition, etc. You still have to decide what the conditions are on your turn, when you hold/prepare the reaction. Doesn't mean your character's incapable of doing anything but spazming.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I'm hoping that something magical will happen and I'll start liking rtwp or something, I dunno.

It's not like combat is really that central to RPGs anyway. They live and die by the story, and given the writing staff on this game we know that'll be good.

Plus, it could be worse.

It could be a romance thread.

 

I just found it odd that you've asked questions on 'what am I missing?'. People have answered with valid answers. Instead of taking what people have said, you're now debating with them as if they're somehow wrong. The questions has been answered, even if you don't like the answers. I like the IE rtwp games, just as I like both the early Fallout Turn Based isometric games as well as the later First Person Fallout games. People will like different games for different reasons, while others won't.

 

The same with arpg's like Diablo and Path of Exile. I also like these games and others don't. If someone posted on the Path of Exile or Blizzard forums with a long post of how terrible these games are and ended with a 'what am I missing?'. What do you think the response will be.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Ffordesoon]

RTwP combat has a problem that neither turn-based nor fully real-time games have to deal with, and that is the problem of rhythm.

 

In a turn-based game, you have full control over the flow of combat. It's like playing an instrument casually; you find your groove and wallow in it. You act, the world reacts, you act on the reaction, the world etc. etc.

 

In fully real-time games, combat is more like dancing in a club. The music's going, and it's up to you to move to the tune in the right ways.

 

Both approaches are pleasurable for much the same reasons playing an instrument or dancing in a club are pleasurable. You control the rhythm, or the rhythm controls you. Either one can be intoxicating.

 

Real-time with pause is like the DJ in the club giving you a remote with a button on it, and when you press the button, the DJ and all the other dancers freeze, and the music abruptly stops, and you're just kind of standing there all sweaty and feeling vaguely idiotic. So you press the button that keeps the party going, but you have to get back into the groove before you can start dancing again. And sometimes the DJ presses pause on the button when you don't want him to, because you told him beforehand to press the button whenever a blonde steps onto the dancefloor, but you meant attractive blondes, not all blondes.

 

Or, uh, something. The point is, it's hard to get into a groove when you're engaged in a nonstop game of Red Light, Green Light. That's what I find, anyway.

[khalil]

A great example of what I like to see in turn-based combat is stuff like Overwatch, which most games have now (that deal heavily with ranged combat).

Yes! I loved overwatch in S:R, and the ability to make my sniper shoot the big guy with the huge gun instead of the 1hp mook they sent through first would have been great.

[Tigranes]

PST:

Spam missile of patience.

Cast Cloudkill or some other big spell that kills everything on the screen.

Just avoid it. Any lout can beat people to death and take their stuff, but only a few special men can talk people into handing over their stuff willingly.

 

BG1:

Cast AOE spells at offscreen enemies.

Have Minsc punch things until they stop moving.

Spam wands.

Spam summons.

 

BG2:

Continue casting AOE spells at offscreen enemies.

Have Minsc punch things until they stop moving.

Spam summons (at offscreen enemies).

Have Minsc use a scroll of antimagic globe to render the demilich harmless. Then have him punch it until it stops moving.

Wait for the enemies protection spells wear off, then punch them until they stop moving.

Apply buffs until you can't see any of the character portraits through all the little symbols. Then punch things until they stop moving.

 

TOB:

Cast timestop.

OH GOD TIMESTOP DOESN'T WORK AGAINST DEMIGORGON!

Return to spamming AOE spells against offscreen enemies. (Like Demigorgon).

Have Minsc put on the big metal unit and punch things until they stop moving.

Spam epic level summoning spells.

Put sticky bombs traps all over the control point wherever the boss is going to stand.

 

 

IE combat isn't perfect, of course, and if you don't like it then ultimately that's your opinion. That said, it's possible to play just about every RPG out there in a boring and grindy manner. I could play through all of Skyrim by standing on a rock and arrowing everyone in the face, but I don't, and I assume you don't, either. If you're going to put time into playing a game, stands to reason that you'd want to play it in a way that is enjoyable. 

 

E.g. spamming AOE spells at offscreen enemies is (1) easier with higher resolutions today, and (2) in any case, actively cheesy. You don't have to do it, it's not like the enemies do it on you and it would be extremely frustrating without doing it. Similarly, you can't really spam wands unless you sell and repurchase wands at max charges; you can do this 'legitimately' given the amount of money you have later on, but again, you don't have to do it. Not because it's 'cheap', but because you know that makes the game far too easy. One argument is that a game with really good combat should get rid of such 'exploits'. Sure, I'd agree. But if your purpose is to try and enjoy the games as they stand, then once you've discovered that you can AOE spam offscreen, why keep doing it until the end of the game?

 

Again, you could start Morrowind, steal high level soul gems from merchants, enchant a weapon with life drain, and then kill everything, all without 'cheating', but why do it?  Indeed, Fallout 3's VATS menu was basically a one-click cheat button; Shadowrun Returns was even simpler than any IE game, because with the low, low difficulty all you have to do is shoot people in the face and occasionally heal. But if you decide to play through F3, surely the more fun way is, for example, not to use the Fat Man, not to abuse VATS even though you know you can, etc. 

 

I've had some really tense and tactically complex - or at least, varied - battles in IE games, and those are some of my most memorable gaming moments. It doesn't compare to any combat situation that, for example, games like Shadowrun, Skyrim, Fallout 3 / New Vegas, KOTOR, etc. are mechanically capable of providing, because their systems simply aren't robust enough. Especially on higher difficulties with mods like SCS, it can be delightful. Start with a rogue backstabbing the enemy mage who fires up contingency protections, then as the rest converge on him quaff an invisibility potion and drop a fireball on the crowd, the rogue getting away with a potion of fire resistance previously ingested; use greater malison + confusion combo to try and target their lower will save mooks to run amok; but frantically move everyone out of the way as the enemy archer has fireball arrows; the enemy mage charms your cleric, making space management difficult, and you frantically see if anyone else has dispel magic, and you can manage to time it so you don't dispel anybody else; given the limited number of breaches you've memorised, which enemies should you try and debuff; if the yuan-ti mage fires a lightning bolt, try and avoid its angles or even, have the enemy fighter chasing after your mage get caught in their own bolt; try and interrupt their mage casting maze before it happens, but since they've got protection from missiles up, your only hope is the mage's magic missile; decide who will go toe to toe with the vampire with level draining melee attack, perhaps the high AC ranger, or perhaps the barbarian who won't lose any spells anyway; what to do when your mage is caught by an insect swarm which is quickly eating at his HP; so on.

 

Anyway, if your objective is to enjoy IE combat, go try BG2 with SCS II mod (or some of it, anyway). Not only a spike in difficulty, but much more intelligent enemies, plus modding out a few cheesy tactics, might set up an experience where you're encouraged to fully explore the tactical system it has. If your objective is to wonder whether Eternity, especially at standard difficulty, will give you enjoyable combat - maybe not.

[juanval]

And what about famous Japanese RPG's combat?

 

I see this famous tipe combat terribly boring in comparison with Infinity Engine combat.

 

I've been playing Southpark the stick of truth and is a game with a good history but I see combat boring after some fights.

 

I remember when I played IE games, where you could cast a fireball with your wizard, heal a wounded warrior with your cleric, use artillery with your rangers, backstab an enemy with your thief and fight face to face with your fighters. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!

 

I'll try ShadowRun. If you know any RPG with better combat than IE games, please tell it to me.

[Greensleeve]

And what about famous Japanese RPG's combat?

 

I see this famous tipe combat terribly boring in comparison with Infinity Engine combat.

 

I've been playing Southpark the stick of truth and is a game with a good history but I see combat boring after some fights.

 

I remember when I played IE games, where you could cast a fireball with your wizard, heal a wounded warrior with your cleric, use artillery with your rangers, backstab an enemy with your thief and fight face to face with your fighters. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!!!

 

I'll try ShadowRun. If you know any RPG with better combat than IE games, please tell it to me.

 

I presume you're referring to tactical combat. In which case I'd point you to Final Fantasy Tactics. Be aware that it can be a pretty hard game. 

[Stun]

Why should we consider playstation exclusives?

[Greensleeve]

Because it's one of the best tactical rpgs of all time?

[Stun]

Yeah, if you like Grinding....

[khalil]

System and game quality are two separate things.

A good game is good on any system, even the CDI.

[khalil]

Yeah, if you like Grinding....

I don't recall grinding when I played FFT.

[Stun]

It's a linear strategy RPG. You'll grind and grind and grind because that's the point.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[khalil]

No, the point is going and fighting to advance the plot.

The last FF game I played (9) had less grinding than Baldur's Gate did.

[rustypup]

RTwP combat has a problem that neither turn-based nor fully real-time games have to deal with, and that is the problem of rhythm.

 

Primary differences between RTwP and TB? RTwP has a natural, player derived, rythm. TB has none.

 

I'm surprised to discover that your experience of the two is the reverse. 

 

RTwP: Pause game, issue instructions, plot responses, let them have at it.

TB: EVERYBODY FREEZE! Your turn, his turn, her turn, their turn, my turn - Oh wait, I have to "tactically manoeuvre" around this obviously fake random obstruction designed to stretch combat out even further. Rinse. Repeat. 

 

Words cannot express the aggravation gap. TB is a throwback to resource shy machines and PnP nostalgia. There is zero good reason for its continued existence. 

 

/Personal opinion may vary...

[Stun]

No, the point is going and fighting to advance the plot.

Then stop criticizing Icewind Dale, because that's its point too.

[khalil]

I find that TB allows for more precise control of individual units without harming your control over other units.

Meanwhile in RTwP, if I want to micromanage one guy I have to trust the AI for the other 5.

[rustypup]

I want to micromanage one guy I have to trust the AI for the other 5.

No. That's not how that works. Not even close. I'd ask if you'd played a RTwP game, but you have. 

 

Colour me confused, but I've always been in full control of all party members? 

[Stun]

I find that TB allows for more precise control of individual units without harming your control over other units.

Meanwhile in RTwP, if I want to micromanage one guy I have to trust the AI for the other 5.

As Rustypup just pointed out, that's... not how it works. And your comparison here is a bit wonky.

 

The only management difference between TB and RTwP is that with TB, micromanagement is forced upon you...for every action, of every character, every round. In RTwP, as its name suggests, you have a choice. If you want to micromanage each of your party members actions each round then....that's what the Pause is for. Combat starts. You pause the game, issue orders to every party member, then you unpause the game and everyone carries out your commands.

 

But if you don't want to micro-manage, then... you don't have to. when combat begins, simply click "select all" then point at an enemy and everyone will start attacking that enemy. You can then micromanage one or more party members from there if you want (pause the game; issue commands) or not.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[khalil]

 

No, the point is going and fighting to advance the plot.

Then stop criticizing Icewind Dale, because that's its point too.

 

It didn't have a plot.

That's the point of Baldur's Gate 2 too, and I don't criticize it for having fighting be the main method of advancing the plot because I was actually interested in what happened next. That's what allowed me to get through the combat, which I immensely disliked.

Icewind Dale? Here's what I remember of the plot:

Mayor: "Hello, walking cliches with less personality than the cast of TF2! Here, have a cliche. Now go kill some goblins."

*Kills goblins*

Mayor: "Now go guard some carts so you can have a fight again"

Me: "Why do I care?"

And that's a good question. I struggled through the dispelling contests and such in BG2 because I was interested in the conclusion, in what Irenicus's motives might be. Icewind Dale had no plot and no compelling characters. A good story can redeem bad gameplay (FF9 and Dreamfall to name a few), but IWD sucked at both.

[khalil]

 

I want to micromanage one guy I have to trust the AI for the other 5.

No. That's not how that works. Not even close. I'd ask if you'd played a RTwP game, but you have. 

 

Colour me confused, but I've always been in full control of all party members?

 

Sure, but if I'm busy selecting a spell for my wizard to cast, I can't tell my fighter to retreat or whatever.

Unless I just sucked and there's some way to manually select spells for your mages while also moving the rogue into place for a sneak attack.

Sure, I can control everyone at once, but after giving everyone orders while paused, I have to just trust that the guys who I'm not micromanaging during gameplay will follow out my orders in a sensible manner.

[Stun]

 

Then stop criticizing Icewind Dale, because that's its point too.

It didn't have a plot.

 

It had an amazing plot. And each dungeon had its own rich story.

 

 

Here's what I remember of the plot:

Mayor: "Hello, walking cliches with less personality than the cast of TF2! Here, have a cliche. Now go kill some goblins."

*Kills goblins*

Mayor: "Now go guard some carts so you can have a fight again"

Me: "Why do I care?"

And that's a good question. I struggled through the dispelling contests and such in BG2 because I was interested in the conclusion, in what Irenicus's motives might be. Icewind Dale had no plot and no compelling characters. A good story can redeem bad gameplay (FF9 and Dreamfall to name a few), but IWD sucked at both.

Then you don't remember much about Icewind Dale.

 

The influence of Crenshinibon. (there's a whole book devoted to it in the Drizzt series btw. It's called the Crystal Shard) Belhifet's forces vs. Yxonnemai's forces, and the mystery of who's doing what to whom; who's causing the disturbances in the pass and why. Then there's the Elven and Dwarven alliance and its breakdown, and who's responsible for the betrayal. Malavon and Ginnafae. Maiden Ilmadia's story. Presio's journal. Kresselak's story.

 

And then we've got the expansions. Personally, I rank the Story of Trials of the Luremaster higher than anything from any of the infinity engine games, save for maybe PS:T's plot.

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

Sure, but if I'm busy selecting a spell for my wizard to cast, I can't tell my fighter to retreat or whatever.

Yes. You can.

 

Pause your game. Grab your wizard and select your spell. Then grab your fighter and click where you want him to retreat. Then unpause your game. Your wizard will then cast the spell you selected, and at the same time, your fighter will retreat.

 

Are You sure you've played the IE games?

Edited March 19, 2014 by Stun