Open Forum: A Challenge

[Slaughter_Manslaught]

One of the biggest problems with implementing both an RT and TB system is that we might get another Arcanum system.

No, never played. Will get it soon.

[aries100]

Let me ask you guys a question, then ?

What, to you, then is true-form rpg ??

I would suggest (from my own pre-judgement, but I could be wrong, of course)

that it would be like

Ultima 5 or 6 or Wizardry 6 or 7
or the Gold Box series.

Or games similar to Fallout.

In other words, a true rpg is an rpg which has lots of text, lots of dialoque options, lots of ways of
solving quests, and has


----

turn-based

combat

----

I wonder if this is true or not ??

[POOPERSCOOPER]

No, and please don't change the subject to "what is an rpg?"

[mattchaos]

Ok, Pokemon may not be seen as a true RPG, and may not be appreciated at all here, but it's not so far from being a RPG, it's Turn Based, and it's a success no one can deny.

[noflashbang]

I love FO1 +FO2. I remember the "good old days" of turn based games. But I remember them as "good" and thank god I don't have to go back. There is a reason that games were turn based in the 90's and that games are NOT now. Technology. Games don't have to be turn-based now, computers are faster. Think about it if turn-based was superior to RT why are so many games RT.

Also with innovation you see the genres of old being mixed; no game is truly any one genre now. They are better for it too. I like my RPFPSRTS games.

One final point: I see a lot of people saying that turn-based is more strategic than real-time. I feel that this is a false thought. Turn-based types of games allow for slower, more thought out strategys. Real-time requires you to think on your feet, strategy is as the name implies real time. Take the Hitman series you really can't say those games don't have strategy, or don't require it. Would Hitman be a better game if it was turn-based? I don't think so. Also look at "dark messiah of might and magic", its First person and real time....also an RPG. In that game you can plan and do all sort of sneaky, strategic things....like kick enemy's into spikes. In an old turn based game you would have to move to the enemy, wait a turn, select the push command and get the same result. The same thing only SLOWER. Theres no less strategy involved in real-time, its just faster.

[frissy]

I was just thinking about the game industry and how it's been changing. Then it more or less hit me, why devs don't do TB or there nothing glorious about it anymore (still, I always prefer TB over RT).

What is the almost biggest thing on the market (game industry) that has shaken it up a bit? Wii. It gave a new way of doing things, playing things. Of course these aren't anything new, but they are new in the living room.
Imagine playing a TB game with Wii...i'd guess it would feel pretty horrible. At least the flow would be all whacked.

Perhaps the problem isn't so much the TB itself, but how TB is played. Stop-go-stop-go doesn't really go well when you are wawing the white remote thingie in your hands.

Actually there is already a somewhat solution for this, and it came in the form of Max Payne. Bullet time. Think about it. Having a TB game that isn't really a 100% TB, but more an symbiosis of RT & TB, not like the common "either one, or both poorly". You would still have the movement involved which they seem to love above gameplay.

[ilcattivo13]

Although quests are the most important thing in rpg game, combat is very important too. There was one P-A rpg game with real-time combat - The Fall, and after a short thinking about it's "outstanding commercial success" i think making such game was almost meaningless (of course, there were such wash-outs with TB rpg like Metalheart too). But when combat with 5 enemies takes 5 or 10 seconds, it becomes ridiculous. There is no pleasure in such combats.

There are voices that real-time combat is realistic combat. I think it doesn't mean realistic combat, especially in rpg games. When someone want to play realistic combat, he should play Americas Army Operations or something like that. Combat in rpg game will never be realistic ( becouse of, for example, problems with shooting range and other things).

Strictly, some people want to play a combination of P-A and hack&slash game. And until they try to play such "monster" they will be shouting loudest against TB P-A games.

Hough

[Dogmeatlives]

Personally, I would actually prefer real-time combat. Fallout is my favorite game and ironically one of the only turn-based games that I had the interest to finish. I am more worried about the over-all greatness of Fallout 3. Morrowind and Oblivion were boring, in my opinion, I have never been interested in Dragons and knights and kingdoms. Those stories never moved me.

I don't keep coming back to Fallout because of the view and the combat system. I come back because of the characters and because I fell in love with the setting, the feeling of adventure. I have somewhat grown out of games and that has obviously changed my perspective on what is a good game.

But the Elder Scrolls games sucked, there is no other way I can describe it. I could not play them. In Fallout, I really felt like I was a living part of that world and I make decisions that had really hard consequences. Of course with so much freedom, I made alot of mistakes and became insanely frustrated many times, but it really got me excited about the future of games.

Since Fallout I honestly have not seen a game with so much interaction, such a feeling of freedom. It could be that I am holding Fallout up on some pedestal but I don't think so. I am by no means an RPG fan. I never have been. I would pick a shooter any day. I found Fallout back in '98 when I was 13 and I discovered it by myself. I had no idea that other people were playing it. I still knew nothing about the internet. I just don't want to see Fallout 3 (a game I have been waiting for since I found out about Fallout 2) be turned into a mediocre over-hyped game with a first-person perspective.

Pokemon was most definitely an RPG. Give me that over Oblivion any freakin day!

[Smiley]

To the original question, why q turnbased game wouldn't sell; it doesn't fit well on the console, and it doesn't appeal to the young gamers.

Those are the key losses, which I not only think are not important, but more importantly I fear that this is what bethesda and other companies are thinking when they release new games.


In my opinion, the "need" for turnbased combat is linked a sentimental value for the feeling of fallout.
It's keyed with SPECIAL which also holds a clear sentimental value.

These things worked fine and complimented the setting.

The top-down view in fallout is for me outdated now, and along with that goes turn based combat.
I've tried 3D turn based in a worms half-life mod and it just felt utterly stupid.

The other thing I think would be severely lacking, would be "true" enviroment interaction and physics. Granted, these could be implemented in a top-down viewed game though I think it would feel less satisfying.


In order to make TB a selling point, a game company would have to downplay reactionbased combat and put an extreme effort into the rest of the game, meaning lore, dialogue, items, missions/quests and npc's. And the mounts of details to make up for that would have to be huge..

About SPECIAL, I've come to think of it as a munchkin system. It practically begs you to powerplay your character with perks, traits and ingame enhancements.
That can be fun in its own way, but I fear it takes up too much of the fallout-esque feeling of the game.


My proposal to what would be better, would be either a first or third person viewed game.
I'm thinking along the lines of System Shock and Deus Ex for first person. Or maybe Bioshock.. but it should be much less combat oriented than that with more interactive communities and items.



As for third person, I like the way World of Warcraft handles the camera and controls(this is not to be confused with the skills or gameplay, so get the f*ck off my back!). I'm not saying it should become a spray-and-pray kind of game like Max Payne/Enclave but something else.. I feel maybe this would be the ideal new view for turnbased combat.

I would change it however, to isntead of being a powerplayed munchkins dream of "I step out and blast two guys, then step back behind my cover lol", you would rather have to guess what your combatants are going to do, and react accordingly.



Being cursor based, you would have some indication of what an objects does, or what the status of an enemy or bystander is.
You could flip over the table and crouch behind it to void enemy fire. Or you could use the bystander as a meatshield, or simply just stand there and mow down the room, perhaps while strafing or moving somewhere.

The new part of this would be a premonition system which would allow you to have an idea of what the others were going to do. the guy in the doorframe might duck back, or run to his wounded friend behind the turned table. Or, it might not be predefined at all, but influenced by what you are going to do.

The point is, that this type of "turn" includes strategy and paused action. The closest I can relate this to would be neverwinter night/baldur's gate, except it could include more details to what was going to happen next, than just hoping for the best.

The key difference would be, you could get shot while running for cover. but you would get a bonus for avoiding enemy fire.

[frissy]

Reason why TB doesn't sell? It's old.

If you want a good TB that will sell, you need the oldness to back it up with. Like the Fallout franchise.

If you try to make a TB without anything familiar or history behind it..well then it will be just plain simply outdated.

[Mismatch]

gfaahgaulanfao

The thing you'd want to remember is what TB can do for ranged(and to some extent melee) combat.

1) Consider a game like KOTOR. Ranges combat is bloody fucked up. The characters just bloody stand there, no movement, no running for cover, everything is just static and rather unstrategic.
FO:T had this problem too when runing realtime.
No realtime RPG seems to have managed to get taking cover and combat movement into combat.

In turnbased you get the option of running for cover and, when in cover, you get to step out to take a shot and then return to cover. Much like a real firefight is in my mind.

2) aimed shots, aimed shots, aimed shots.
Realtime games tend NOT to use aimed shots, which is bloody retarded.
In FO the ability to target certain bodyparts gave the game a extra strategic dimension in combat. A good hit could turn a firefight around.

This is <i>somewhat</i> possible in realtime with pause, buth then you'd have to pause each round. So why not just make the game turnbased?



In essence, turnbased combat is the best ranged combat simulation tool right now. Making combat realtime is just retarded, since its not as good.

[PsychoSniper]

TB doesnt go with being on the reciving end of butt sex.


Bethesda likes being on the recieving end of butt sex.

[Smiley]

@ mismatch

easy controllable by speed.

[PsychoSniper]

I prfer the TB combat methods, personaly.


When I have party members, I tend to spend half the fight running at an angle so I can get a 'clear' shot, as well as rounding corners.

Course, that isnt an issue in my latest playthru as Ian and Tycho died working on the crimson caravan.

Tho I did a home invasion on that bountryhunter in LA, and left Katja there watching me shit.

[Mismatch]

@ mismatch

easy controllable by speed.

Which part?

I know you can mean the standing still and shooting part. Since standing still and shooting five feet apart is retarded regardless of speed.

And sure, yuou can move for cver in slowmotion realtime, and even in realtime. But you cant shoot while doing it. TB is the best simulation of shooting and moving.

And sure, you <i>could</i> probably target shots in slower gamespeed, but the tageting would take time, and if it takes time, you would want to pause. And if you pause, you obviously want turnbased.

Realtime has no objective advantages to turnbased, any possible advantages are subjective, and thus TB is better since it has definable advantages.

[frissy]

But the reality isn't just "the proper simulation of combat". Yes, in a strategy/tactis idea the TB rules. As for "real" combat...well you don't have turns of pause in real combat.

I enjoy TB more, because it does give a better tactical view and a better simulation of combat, but it still doesn't hide the fact that TB's biggest disadvantage is the lack of realism of the action part.

It's mostly the question of what you like, and prefer. At the moment the behemoth of the industry is interaction with the games. Fallout and such are more Live the game than the current trend of be the game. I like games because I want to experience the games, not just do karate in front of my telly.

That's something that I personally have never seen in Bethesda's games, but I can't see myself living any game that has fantasy and shit like that. Not my stuff.

Also many people concider TB as the hex-by-hex nothing fluid. If i'm not mistaken TB can also be a Your turn - choose actions - end turn, and then all the actions happen in realtime and you see the result. I could live with a gameplay that wouldn't hinder the commands, but would still give the freshness of RT.

[Mismatch]

Also many people concider TB as the hex-by-hex nothing fluid. If i'm not mistaken TB can also be a Your turn - choose actions - end turn, and then all the actions happen in realtime and you see the result.

yah, dunno if itss ever been done tho', I've been thinking a tad 'bout that and it could probably be implemented with some work.

Suppose that each such 'round' is considered to take 5 seconds or summit, and that we have two persons A and B.

A has 8 actionpoints, and B 5.
This should implicate that A can perform an action about 60% faster than person B.
So we assume that each action is thus describes with a 'time cost' rather than a AP cost and then manipulated by the amount of AP's.

Each player instance can during combat have an instance of a action array, an array of actions mapped over a timeperiod.
....~~~~~~~~TIME~~~~~~~~
A: [aimAt(kneecap)+shootAt( B )][move+shootAt( B )][crouch]
B: [moveTo(x,y,z)+shootAt(A)][shootAt(A)][shootAt(A)]

Then as both are done with their choices, a thread goes through the actions and performs them with all actions taken into account, ie: When player A aims and shoots he gets a tohit penalt from B's movement. This should probably be done before playing the sequence, and thus giving time for all calculations.
Then the sequence is stored and played in realtime.

The theory is rather straightforward, however I suppose some issues could arise, though they can arise in most ways of combat.

Not sure about how fun it'd be either...
traditional FO turnbased still is the best.

//this wouldnt work for more combatants than two, tho I think it'd be easier //to illustarate my point in a non dynamic environment.
....
/*
* In combat
*/
action actionPl1, actionPl2;

while(combat.getTime() < 10){

// assume this returns an action at a given time.
actionPl1 = player1.getAction( combat.getTime() );
actionPl2 = player1.getAction( combat.getTime() );

combat.simulate(actionPl1, combat.getTime(), actionPl2 );
// no, getTime really isnt needed as a parameter since its a member of
// combat. tho I keep it there to ilustrate a point.
// Also asume that simulate sees to it that both actions are non null etc.

//increases the timer by 0,1 seconds.
combat.tickTime();
player1.tick();
player2.tick();
}//end of while, we have simulated everything.


//play the simulated turn.
combat.play();

/*
* This really doesnt say shit, since everything important is done within
* the simulate method...
* And we're not describing that one.
*/

[aries100]

�es, the current trend in gaming is --- to Live (in) the game, thus making games more of a world simulator, like the Sims games.

This is the reason behind the Wii games, where you are meant to not only roleplay a character, but be the character i.e. your swinging of the sword means that you as the character also swings the sword.

This is tied in with the 'let's make games more cinematic' (you know like movies) trend, which again is tied in with the whole 'let's get the gamers more immersed' in the world, which actually means that the palyers should feel like they were living in say Tamriel or Cyrodiil themselves.

And for that reason alone, I don't think TB combat is going to make it back into rpgs (or any other games for that matter, but we're talking about TB games like the one used in FO here).

If you look at TB combased, its tradition is rooted in the military tradition of the early 1800's where TEAM A would shoot first, then B would shoot. And then there would be a pause to get the wounded away from the battlefield. The reason for this was very simply that rifles and canons should be loaded in the front, you had to put the bullets down the barrel of the rifle, then shoot. The same was true for the loading of the canons. Technological advances during the 1800's made this TB combat IRL obsolete and void. Just as tech advances has made the TB combat in computergames, in rpgs,
void and obsolete.

Especially since the current trend is to make games, even rpgs, real life simulators, and today's armies irl, in combat, don'tuse TB combat anymore.

[Thor Kaufman]

Turnbased combat allows for way more strategy. With real time it's like give all your people a gun and let them shoot, unless you have uber micro management skills, so you can give every teammember different orders. Turnbased combat is far more relaxed.

If I want to go berzerk I play FPS

[minigunwielder]

I love FO1 +FO2. I remember the "good old days" of turn based games. But I remember them as "good" and thank god I don't have to go back. There is a reason that games were turn based in the 90's and that games are NOT now. Technology. Games don't have to be turn-based now, computers are faster. Think about it if turn-based was superior to RT why are so many games RT.

Also with innovation you see the genres of old being mixed; no game is truly any one genre now. They are better for it too. I like my RPFPSRTS games.

One final point: I see a lot of people saying that turn-based is more strategic than real-time. I feel that this is a false thought. Turn-based types of games allow for slower, more thought out strategys. Real-time requires you to think on your feet, strategy is as the name implies real time. Take the Hitman series you really can't say those games don't have strategy, or don't require it. Would Hitman be a better game if it was turn-based? I don't think so. Also look at "dark messiah of might and magic", its First person and real time....also an RPG. In that game you can plan and do all sort of sneaky, strategic things....like kick enemy's into spikes. In an old turn based game you would have to move to the enemy, wait a turn, select the push command and get the same result. The same thing only SLOWER. Theres no less strategy involved in real-time, its just faster.

Turn-Based requires good game design skills, TB requires thought because that is the primary draw, to be tactical and Etc.

RT does not, you can simply spam enemies and pass it off as "Tactics"

When all you do is essentially use canned routines, tactics, Etc.

RTSes require you to use whatever race is less nerfed, or in the case of singleplayer, automatically win/lose

TBSes require/allow you to pay attention to everything happening and act accordingly.


RT is good fir when you are not micro-managing anything whatsoever.


TB is good

FAKE EDIT:just read your incomprehensible bullshit pertaining to the Wii, I like how you fuckers ignore what Shiggy himself said in order to salvage a retarded argument.

FAKE EDIT2: you are so goddamned stupid.