(Don't) Give me that old time RPG combat

[Jabberwok]

The fact that this kickstarter has succeeded already proves this guy wrong. He is definitely missing the point. It's unfortunate that every site seems to require registration anymore, so I can never respond to the stupid stuff internet writers say without wasting my time.

And KOTOR was not real time. It was turn based without an automatic stop after each turn. There was an even an option that would pause after every round, so you could play it just like a turn-based. Even moving around often had to wait until the current action completed.

 

[Viliny]

What? F01 + 2 were clunky turn based, which for isometric parties was absolutely fine. That system, with slight refining, would be fine by me in a new game. I don't care if others had previously and have since switched to a different format.

I wonder if holy water would work on you.

 

[chewie]

What? F01 + 2 were clunky turn based, which for isometric parties was absolutely fine. That system, with slight refining, would be fine by me in a new game. I don't care if others had previously and have since switched to a different format.

I wonder if holy water would work on you.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Kotor is just real time with pause.

I disagree, you could queue attacks and pause after your queues were empty... which made it much closer to turn based then DA:O which really was real-time with pause. There was no real twitch factor except when you needed to move, but that didn't matter much because most combat was in your face light sabers.

I played the game.

Lets be honest. Its real time with pause. It might feel to you like it was close to TB or what ever. But it was not.

Maybe it was a bit closer to it then Dragonage. But it is still not really even close to "TB".

- that is not saying anything about the quality of the game I liked Kotor. But lets not call a chicken a duck here.

 

[Makagulfazel]

And KOTOR was not real time. It was turn based without an automatic stop after each turn. There was an even an option that would pause after every round, so you could play it just like a turn-based. Even moving around often had to wait until the current action completed.

It's still RTwP. Just like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights, all of the units' actions take place concurrently. A turn-based game should only have one active unit at a time, while the rest of the units are frozen in place until it is their turn. I can't think of any turn-based games that break that formula. Even game mechanics such as Chrono Trigger's combo system just combines units' actions, which are still executed in turn.

EDIT:
GRAMMAR KING

 

[DemonNick]

Did you guys actually read the article? He's not comparing 1980's-era RPG combat to contemporary RPG combat, he's comparing 1980's-era menu based combat with the nineties, which was arguably the golden age of CRPGs.

To be honest I kind of agree with him. Wasteland's combat kinda stanks, even compared to stuff that came out around the same time (the Gold Box games, for instance). Also when he talks about Fallout's fast-paced single-character based tactical combat I think he's talking about 1 and 2, isn't he?

Personally though I think he's nuts when he says it should be like Wizardry 8.

 

[Kyuu]

Did you guys actually read the article? He's not comparing 1980's-era RPG combat to contemporary RPG combat, he's comparing 1980's-era menu based combat with the nineties, which was arguably the golden age of CRPGs.

That's not what I got from the article, and if that's what he meant, he definitely wasn't very clear about it.

To be honest I kind of agree with him. Wasteland's combat kinda stanks, even compared to stuff that came out around the same time (the Gold Box games, for instance).

I don't think anyone is saying they should bring Wasteland's combat system back. If that's what he's arguing against, then who the hell is he even talking to? It seems more like he's arguing for contemporary RPG combat systems vs. "golden-age" cRPG turn-based systems like Fallout's.

Also when he talks about Fallout's fast-paced single-character based tactical combat I think he's talking about 1 and 2, isn't he?

I love Fallout's combat, personally, and think a refined and updated version of it would be great. But I don't know how anyone could call it "fast-paced". It seemed more like he was talking about Fallout 3's (a.k.a. Oblivion with guns) combat.

 

[Kwiatmen666]

I don't think this game is going to live up to today's standards... And yes, I am aware of the fact that "old school gamers" want that. It is unfortunate because think what will happen if you take a game from waaaay old times and put it on the shelves with everything in it old - except for graphics ofc.

Fail to picture that? Think about Duke Nukem Forever.

 

[TorontoReign]

I don't think this game is going to live up to today's standards... And yes, I am aware of the fact that "old school gamers" want that. It is unfortunate because think what will happen if you take a game from waaaay old times and put it on the shelves with everything in it old - except for graphics ofc.

Fail to picture that? Think about Duke Nukem Forever.

Not a fair comparison. Duke failed because the game was developed for over 15 years by multiple developers. Not because it wasn't a good idea. It was just executed poorly. That style of game can still be done well without being horrible. Just like a old school RPG can be awesome without being mainstream.

 

[Kyuu]

It is unfortunate because think what will happen if you take a game from waaaay old times and put it on the shelves with everything in it old - except for graphics ofc.

Well see that's the thing: this project doesn't have to be a run-away commercial success. That's part of the point. 'Course, it'd be great if it was so that inXile would make a tidy profit it could put toward future projects. But, I think the game has a good chance at being pretty successful if it turns out well. Neither of us are clairvoyant, though, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Fail to picture that? Think about Duke Nukem Forever.

Yeaaaah... that wasn't Duke Nukem Forever's problem.

Also, comparing Duke Nukem to the likes of Wasteland is just... wrong.

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't think this game is going to live up to today's standards... And yes, I am aware of the fact that "old school gamers" want that. It is unfortunate because think what will happen if you take a game from waaaay old times and put it on the shelves with everything in it old - except for graphics ofc.

Fail to picture that? Think about Duke Nukem Forever.

Today's "standards" is kind of a pointless buzzword unless you specify what you mean by it. The Kickstarter model means that the project has technically already broken even, so they really don't have to worry about sales all that much.. if it's good it'll find its audience.

And if anything, a part of Duke Nukem Forever's problems came down to the fact that it just really wasn't an old-school FPS at all. Unless by old school you mean mid-2000s circa Half Life 2.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't think this game is going to live up to today's standards...

hmm yeah. But thats a good thing in my book. Just because its new its not always better. And by the way when I am looking over to Silent Storm, I think even "old" gameplay can be done in "great" ways with visual upgrades without the need to sacrifice anything from the gameplay.

 

[.Pixote.]

Duke failed because the game was developed for over 15 years by multiple developers. Not because it wasn't a good idea. It was just executed poorly. That style of game can still be done well without being horrible. Just like a old school RPG can be awesome without being mainstream.

There was no real design behind the game, with each new feature that their rivals demonstrated, Apogee decided to add it to their game, so they were always behind the competition. They should have stuck to a "simple" 3 year development cycle and just released the bloody thing, instead of blowing millions and millions on a never ending mess.

Watch and weep...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQjm0Z7UNgg&feature=sh_e_se&list=SL[/youtube]

 

[Jabberwok]

And KOTOR was not real time. It was turn based without an automatic stop after each turn. There was an even an option that would pause after every round, so you could play it just like a turn-based. Even moving around often had to wait until the current action completed.

It's still RTwP. Just like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights, all of the units' actions take place concurrently. A turn-based game should only have one active unit at a time, while the rest of the units are frozen in place until it is their turn. I can't think of any turn-based games that break that formula. Even game mechanics such as Chrono Trigger's combo system just combines units' actions, which are still executed in turn.

EDIT:
GRAMMAR KING

Now I won't be able to remember the name of it, but there was a WWII strategy game years back which was turn based with simultaneous action. All units were paused at the same time, issued orders, and then all units of both sides moved at once during the turn's action phase. And I'm sure there must be multiple examples of this system.

My point about KOTOR was that it was not true real time, because all units had set phases of action and inaction which were uniform in length, the only difference being that actions happened simultaneously. Two dueling jedis would play an animation, one would land a hit and take damage, then there would be a pause, then they would play another animation and calculate who won that phase....ad nauseum. One exception was that it was possible to interrupt an attack animation towards the end of it by moving while still landing a hit.

To clarify, I liked KOTOR, and I don't want Wasteland 2 to be real time, or even faux real time. What I want is a full-fledged turn-based game, preferably with hexes, or something similar.

 

[DemonNick]

Did you guys actually read the article? He's not comparing 1980's-era RPG combat to contemporary RPG combat, he's comparing 1980's-era menu based combat with the nineties, which was arguably the golden age of CRPGs.

That's not what I got from the article, and if that's what he meant, he definitely wasn't very clear about it.

Almost all his examples are from the nineties and he only ever mentions games from the nineties and eighties, with the exception of The Elder Scrolls (which had installments in the nineties) and Wizardry 8, a game that came out in like 2001.

He outright says he wants it to play like Wizardry 8, which was turn based and emphasized positional tactics, and everyone in this thread is talking about how he's hating on turn based combat.

 

[Makagulfazel]

...and everyone in this thread is talking about how he's hating on turn based combat.

Not everyone. It's not nice to use absolutes

 

[Brother None]

Nor is it productive to blame people for misinterpreting writing when the author really can't formulate a coherent argument well. It's not the reader's fault if the writer is incompetent.

 

[DemonNick]

Nor is it productive to blame people for misinterpreting writing when the author really can't formulate a coherent argument well. It's not the reader's fault if the writer is incompetent.

If you don't know any of the games he's talking about I can see how you might jump to conclusions but if you don't know the games that he's talking about you're probably not the kind of person who has an opinion about RPG mechanics.

 

[Crni Vuk]

BN has quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to gaming journalism. So maybe he is right.

 

[Brother None]

If you don't know any of the games he's talking about I can see how you might jump to conclusions but if you don't know the games that he's talking about you're probably not the kind of person who has an opinion about RPG mechanics.

Hah. A decent attempt at sniping, but no, I know what he's talking about, and I still got a headache trying to decipher that excuse of a writeup. And while I know he's not against TB (as, y'know, the newsposts explicitly says), he still seems to believe a lot of it stems from technical limitations, and has similar ill-formed if not idiotic opinions on how and why TB systems work.