DaC throws down the gauntlet

[Sander]

In response to reading the article Linked to me Twice I read it the first time it was linked to me. I also know that the KOTOR series is not a RT with Pause.

Oh really? Why not then?
Yes, I know it is based on *rounds*. The only effect those rounds have is the fact that combat takes longer. That's it.
Now try to actually *read* the article, okay, it explains that.

However I will also agree with Morbus it is not the same turn based used in Fallout. Also Fallouts Perk/Trait system in conjunction with SPECIAL and skills is almost a direct mirror for D20's Feats/Skills/Attributes system as far as functionality in a turnbased combat. Your Feats like Rapid Shot and Multiattack provide a rough equivalency to similiar Perks/Traits that enable a fallout character to shoot faster and more often.

...
No they aren't. Fallout works with actions based on Action Points, and grants (with some perks/traits) the character the ability to use fewer action points for certain action points, or the ability to have more action points. The combat system there i s based on a measurement of action points.
D20, on the other hand, revolves around a measurement of the amount of actions you can take per round. The difference is subtle, but very important. In part because, especially with the whole RT with pause deal, you cannot intervene in the middle of a round.

Other than that, I don't see the relevance to KoTOR somehow being Turn-based, though. If you hadn't noticed, the only difference between the Baldur's Gate and KoTOR combat system is the difference between AD&D and D20, which is the underlying rolls. Both use a system where you have a real-time (but round-based) system, where you can pause and assign actions. I'm not sure whether or not BG had the ability to queue actions, but that's irrelevant either way.

I can understand how people at first look call the KOTOR series a RT with pause or even a Phased-Based(WeGo) system. However I offer this to the argument that KOTOR is more of a Realtime turnbased or RTTB w/pause. The reason is that it has aspects of both turnbased and realtime with pause. If you let the combat run in autopilot then it is Realtime in perpective however if you are actively involved in your combat you will find that you can assign a combat action the immediately jump into your inventory and slap a medpack, however the game limits you to one medpack per turn and even flashes you a message window to this effect. This very action is turnbased and limits what you can do in a given turn.

Read the goddamn article. It *explains* how this is not turn-based.
Here's turn-based:
Person 1 goes. Person 2 goes. Person 3 goes. Repeat. Again: think about any card game or board game and then try to play it in the way that you play KoTOR.

That's turn-based. *Sequential, seperate turns*. There is *no* remnant of that at all in KoTOR.
It's Real-Time with pause, with discrete rounds added to, essentially, prolong combat. It most certainly isn't turn-based.

My only argument along the lines about turn-based as it was in the original Fallout and the type of Turnbased found in the Kotor series which despite the way of thinking based on that article is not Realtime with pause.

Your only argument is that it has round-based combat? Whoopdi-doo. That doesn't mean anything. If it allowed you to do infinitely many things in an amount of time, your character would hit twenty-thousand times per round. The

I took this approach as this seems to be an escepted norm among the forum members here to immediately jump in and start insulting people who post when they object or speak in opposition. Even in this thread prior to my posting the hostile responses given to other posters is right out of the gate without pause. I read Sanders first post in this thread and I knew that any opinion I contribute in a calm rational matter is going to be met with insults. So by the time I finished writing my post I was feeling heated and inflamitory and didn't care who took offense as that is the approach taken by forum members here. If I'm wrong and Sander didn't call Aries an idiot twice and tell him he was full of bullshit then I will stand corrected.

Oh, I most certainly did. I do that all the time with uninformed opinions and people who refuse to look something up.

Howeverr, there is a very large difference between 'you're an idiot' in the context of an argument and 'EVERYBODY HERE FUCKING SUCKS!' *outside of the context of an argument* which is what you did. You insulted the entire community in a completely seperate paragraph that had nothing to do with the argument at hand. Hence, trolling.

However my point stands is this Admin's and Moderator's set the exceptable norm within a forum if an Admin is going to call somebody an idiot then it welcomes people to come off as "Trolls" and treat others in kind.

So I ask this instead do I need to rack up 100 posts before I'm entitled to the right to respond to a post in the same manner as is accepted as standard here?

No. You need to actually hold yourself to that standard, which you didn't.

 

[Darkkender]

Read the goddamn article. It *explains* how this is not turn-based.
Here's turn-based:
Person 1 goes. Person 2 goes. Person 3 goes. Repeat. Again: think about any card game or board game and then try to play it in the way that you play KoTOR.

That's turn-based. *Sequential, seperate turns*. There is *no* remnant of that at all in KoTOR.
It's Real-Time with pause, with discrete rounds added to, essentially, prolong combat. It most certainly isn't turn-based.

As I said from outward appearances the KOTOR series appears to be RT w/pause I won't argue that point. I will point out though that it is in fact turnbased as you just described above. Your enemy in combat does not actually make his attack untill his turn. However the characters in the game actually simulate blocking shots and dodging when they are being attacked.

The difference in KOTOR's Turnbased and Fallouts turnbased is that in fallout you actually tell the game that your done and end the turn. Meanwhile in KOTOR the game automatically ends the turn for you. This gives the player the immersion effect to make them feel like they are really there which is one of the many goals of a good RPG.

Now you made a very specific point about Round based actions and Actions taken within a turn with action points. Wether you call it a round or a turn they are both turnbased combat and you can't argue it no matter how you want to split that hair. When I pointed out the similarities between SPECIAL and D20 it was to point how they were similiar. While one system uses action points which provide the player the ability to have versatility by specializing in being a fast shot and getting off more shots per round or moving more spaces by having more action points available. The other just handles the same dynamic in a different approach however the results can frequently be the same. I won't deny it is much more difficult to observe and follow in the KOTOR games vs fallout and because the failed to implement as much of the feat related benefits that can be found in the D20 system doesn't mean that it is anyless turnbased.

I tell you what rather than arguing this point untill the cows come home, I ask you this do you have KOTOR? If so play it for a short bit and pay close attention to the actual combat round. If you watch closely you can watch the turns themselves playout. On your turn in combat the icon in the combat action bar will be highlighted and lit up meanwhile on your opponents turn it will appear dulled down. During combat actively press "I" while you have a combat action taking effect. If the turn is actively your turn the game will allow you to slap a single medpac or stim in addition to your combat action. If the turn is actively yours you will see the effects immediately however if it is actually your opponents turn the action will wait untill your turn and will not immediately happen. Also if you are in a combat with multiple partymembers you will be able to watch for the turnbased action easier as your partymembers are not striking opponents or firing there gun at the same time you are striking your opponent. Your partymembers each have to wait untill it is there turn, which all of this is based on initiative roles behind the scenes. However you can also got to the journal menu and follow the actual combat rounds initiative sequence as it changes each turn. A RT wouldn't actually have an initiative sequence it would have all action occuring at the same time.

Now if your just watching the gameplay over your friends shoulder odds are your not paying attention to how the combat sytem is playing out as much as if your playing the game and actively paying attention to this.

For a point of reference the only reason I'm arguing on the KOTOR factor is because I play this one much more actively and about as frequently as I play fallout as compared to NWN which while good, has interface faults that drive me nuts to the point that anytime I start playing it I stop and put away for months on end and never complete the game. Also NWN while also having some of the same points of Turnbased combat that I argued about above for KOTOR, it is much more difficult to observe in NWN. This is why I'm not mixing up the argument using NWN. Even though I could interchange them and challenge along the same lines.

 

[Sander]

As I said from outward appearances the KOTOR series appears to be RT w/pause I won't argue that point. I will point out though that it is in fact turnbased as you just described above. Your enemy in combat does not actually make his attack untill his turn.

Bullshite. A round is initiated, the attacks for that round are then *set in stone* and cannot be altered, and based on probably initiative they are played out. That is not the same as 'person 1 goes, person 2 goes, person 3 goes, repeat' it's 'everybody selects something, person 1's character acts, person 2's character acts, person 3's character acts'

However the characters in the game actually simulate blocking shots and dodging when they are being attacked.

Purely cosmetic additions.

The difference in KOTOR's Turnbased and Fallouts turnbased is that in fallout you actually tell the game that your done and end the turn.

Did you even read anything anyone has said here?

Meanwhile in KOTOR the game automatically ends the turn for you. This gives the player the immersion effect to make them feel like they are really there which is one of the many goals of a good RPG.

Wait, what? I didn't know that telling your character to do something and then having to wait 6 seconds for him to act added to 'immershun'. In fact, it doesn't.

Now you made a very specific point about Round based actions and Actions taken within a turn with action points.

In regard to d20, yes, which *is* a turn-based system.

Wether you call it a round or a turn they are both turnbased combat and you can't argue it no matter how you want to split that hair.

Oh, really? Then what the fuck have I been doing here?

When I pointed out the similarities between SPECIAL and D20 it was to point how they were similiar. While one system uses action points which provide the player the ability to have versatility by specializing in being a fast shot and getting off more shots per round or moving more spaces by having more action points available. The other just handles the same dynamic in a different approach however the results can frequently be the same. I won't deny it is much more difficult to observe and follow in the KOTOR games vs fallout and because the failed to implement as much of the feat related benefits that can be found in the D20 system doesn't mean that it is anyless turnbased.

The problem is that D20 may be turn-based, but KOTOR isn't!
If you want to see a turn-based implementation of D20, go play Temple of Elemental Evil.

I tell you what rather than arguing this point untill the cows come home, I ask you this do you have KOTOR?

Yes, in fact, I completed it just a few days ago.

If so play it for a short bit and pay close attention to the actual combat round. If you watch closely you can watch the turns themselves playout. On your turn in combat the icon in the combat action bar will be highlighted and lit up meanwhile on your opponents turn it will appear dulled down. During combat actively press "I" while you have a combat action taking effect. If the turn is actively your turn the game will allow you to slap a single medpac or stim in addition to your combat action. If the turn is actively yours you will see the effects immediately however if it is actually your opponents turn the action will wait untill your turn and will not immediately happen.

Completely wrong interpretation. You can do one thing with your inventory during the *entire round, including when your opponent is hitting you*.

Also if you are in a combat with multiple partymembers you will be able to watch for the turnbased action easier as your partymembers are not striking opponents or firing there gun at the same time you are striking your opponent.

Actually, pal, they are.
Other than that, this does not make it a turn-based system! 'But why not?? It has turns doesn't it???' No, it has rounds, and people within that round act upon initiative. However, this does not make it turn-based.

Let's take an example. Say, poker. Suppose we play it like KoTOR, the following would happen:
- All players declare what they are doing next round (if they don't declare anything they check)
- Player 1 had decided to bet $20 in early position to show strength.
- Player 2 had decided to check, which he can't do now, conflict! Supposing he folds, then.
- Player 3 was going to bluff to 20 and had entered that, however now that player 1 has already bet 20 his hand strength is gone and the strength of his bluff gone. Of course, he still has to put in the 20 since he had already said he would. Bye-bye hand-potential.
- Player 4 had decided to go all-in. Now the other players get no chance to react to this, since they'd entered what they'd do already.
Pausing here would do nothing, since people had altered their actions already. Yes, that's what happens in KotOR as well.

Here's what would happen in Fallout:

- Player 1 bets 20 to show strength.
- Player 2 calls because he doesn't trust Player 1 (note that in the earlier scenario he would have folded due to his check).
- Player 3 now folds, since a raise here would be too risky.
- Player 4 goes all-in as he said.
Then the players go another turn, to react to player 4's all-in.

There you go. That's what real-time 'with pause', if you pause every round, does to a turn-based game: it removes all the tactical elements because you cannot gauge the reactions of the opponents, react to actions already committed because it all happened at nearly the same time etc.

Here's an example in ranged combat, player 1 and 2 v. player 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 :
KotOR:

- Player 1 decided to shoot at player 4, killing player 4.
- Player 3 had decided to heal player 4 using his jedi-heal power, but that now goes to waste now that player 4 is dead
- Player 5 shoots player 1, killing him.
- Player 6 was shooting player 1, but he's now dead, wasted round.
- Player 2 shoots player 5, injuring him to near-death.
- Player 7 would have liked to heal player 5, but can't now that he'd already decided to shoot at player 2. Whoops, tough luck.

Fallout:
- Player 1 kills player 4
- Player 3 was going to heal player 4, but won't know that he's dead. Instead, he shoots at player 2, injuring him.
- Player 5 shoots and kills player 1.
- Player 6 was going to shoot player 1, but instead fires at player 2 (who's already injured), but misses. Aww...
- Player 2 shoots player 5, heavily injuring him.
- Player 7 decides to heal player 5, since shooting player 2 doesn't guarantee a kill.

Again, pauses wouldn't have helped since everything is already set in stone. Even if it wasn't, having to pause every second or so to re-evaluate what you're doing is tedious and, as I said before, actually prolongs combat.

Here's another good indicator of it not being turn-based: you can have your character run around at all times no matter what is happening, including in what you call your opponent's turn. Hence there is also no real option to use terrain, cover etc. to your advantage.

Your partymembers each have to wait untill it is there turn, which all of this is based on initiative roles behind the scenes. However you can also got to the journal menu and follow the actual combat rounds initiative sequence as it changes each turn. A RT wouldn't actually have an initiative sequence it would have all action occuring at the same time.

Bullshit. Real-time systems have this just as much, in fact, Baldur's Gate had this as well. It's a technical mechanic behind the system that has very little to do with whether or not the system is actually turn-based.
I'll tell you what, I'll take Half-Life and implement initiative there to see that when people fire within a certain amount of time of eachother who hits the other first.
Did I just make Half-Life turn-based or just add another abstraction to prevent conflicts from appearing?

Now if your just watching the gameplay over your friends shoulder odds are your not paying attention to how the combat sytem is playing out as much as if your playing the game and actively paying attention to this.

Considering the fact that 'Ooh, I just queueud 20 flurries, weee' isn't all that interesting to watch, I don't think the distinction can be made.

For a point of reference the only reason I'm arguing on the KOTOR factor is because I play this one much more actively and about as frequently as I play fallout as compared to NWN which while good, has interface faults that drive me nuts to the point that anytime I start playing it I stop and put away for months on end and never complete the game. Also NWN while also having some of the same points of Turnbased combat that I argued about above for KOTOR, it is much more difficult to observe in NWN. This is why I'm not mixing up the argument using NWN. Even though I could interchange them and challenge along the same lines.

You do realise that NWN and KoTOR run on pretty much the same engine, don't you? And that NWN sucked major, major, major ass?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

If it looks like RT&P and acts like RT&P it is bloody RT&P no matter that it's based on D20 or not. It's just as much a mess to play, a matter of frantically clicking to target the right opponent and hitting the right hotkey at the right time. Despite turning on all the pause options.

A simple test of a real turn based game is that your characters won't do anything that you don't tell them to. I've played a lot of KOTOR 2 recently and even with the pause options I spent more time cancelling orders as my character were always choosing their own targets and attacks.

How is that different than any other RT&P game? Or better than Fallout's combat?

 

[Briosafreak]

Great post Sander 8)

 

[Sorrow]

I played simultaneous round-based BG and I didn't like it - no groin/eye/head-shots, weird mechanics which are neither turn-based nor real time, self-guided arrows, waiting for attacks, running away from enemies until the end of characters round so that she could drink a potion, etc.
It was too slow and to artificial for a RT+P game and too crude and too slow for a TB game.

The horror... the horror...

 

[aries369]

Yes, in the grander scheme of things, Sander is correct - when it comes to TB and RT combat. (about other things -- I'm not that sure ). (sorry, English is not my native tongue).

The point I was trying to make was that in D&D games you sit a table (maybe we could call table top games then ) when you play D&D modules. I know, of course, that you sit
with your pen and paper and plot the way
you're going.

To me, when I look back at TES Arena etc. and what I've read about them etc. they seem very heavily stat and ability driven (well unless for Oblivion). There's bunch of micro-management you need to do, but so there was, also, iirc, in Diablo.

I'm just curius, Kharn...if you want to elaborate a little more on how TES games somehow are the archdaddys of the hack n slash games ??

 

[Per]

No ur rong coz pong had pause and rtwp = tb lol pwned

The funny thing is that I was about to make a Pong/RTwP comment, but stopped myself by immersing my hands in molten lava.

 

[Brother None]

The funny thing is that I was about to make a Pong/RTwP comment, but stopped myself by immersing my hands in molten lava.

IMMERSHUN!

 

[Wild_qwerty]

It comes down to a simple proven mathmatical formula of old=bad

You see I remember in the good old days (the "golden time" of gaming) when I uesed to play pools of radience on my commodore 64. It was one of the gold box series of AD&D games, they were a big success by SSI and of course they were turn based.

But they are old and therefore suck completely.

Turn bassed is old and therefore sucks completely

It's a well known fact they in order to work at a game developer now days you have to euthenise your old family memebers and sign a contract that says you will be "retired" apon reaching your 30th birthday.

old = crappy

okay maybe I'm exagerating but I'd bet money that this is what it comes down too, one of the traps peopel fall into in anything computer related is that the newest and fastest is always the best, and the game publishers think the same by default. Sure a lot of the old games had to be turn based the computer weren't powerfull enough to process a game in true time, but turn based is not a trechnical specification, its a play style.

If you confuse an old play style as an old technical issue then you try to 'fix it'