inXile funding Torment

I think Real Time with pause has its place. I definitely liked it in Baldurs Gate. Though, I would not replace the Turn Based combat of Jagged Alliance with it.

I believe if a game is made with a certain gameplay in mind, then its alright to have the one or the other. As long not someone comes around claiming that stuff like Fallout 3s VATS or what ever is a "turn based" thing.
 
fred2 said:
1. Video games are not PnP games. (in fact I can argue that one of the worst considered RPGs had far far superior mechanics to those to D&D PnP)
Click to expand...
But using PnP rule doesn't it?

fred2 said:
2. BS... it was ported from PnP.
Click to expand...
From what I heard, no.
bioware didn't want to make rpg but rts. thier engine, infinity was came from "battleground infinity" which was planned to be rts.
but Interplay demended bioware to make rpg with D&D rule so that's the origin of RTwP. it's not came from PnP but came from RTS engine. the word RTwP was came from PnP is same lie as Dawn of war was made from original wargame rule.

RTwP worked pretty well in all my RPG classics.
Click to expand...
How about Torment itself? combat of Torment is really a torment. it doesn't worked well in Torment. so no need to follow the footspet of failure.

5. This is not JA2, nor any other tactical game. It's suppose to be a story heavy RPG (not combat heavy).
Click to expand...
and not a baldur's gate or neverwinter nights too. even story is heavier than combat, that can't explain why Torment 2 should use RTwP. even story is heavier than combat, still it can have great tactical combat because great plot and great combat are not against each other. atually, to use unique system properly, I think TB is the best way.
 
I've never been very happy with either TB or TBwP, both have their benefits and their drawbacks.

"you go then I go" is not only an unrealistic sim of a "real" combat, but its just. takes. so. looooong.

RTwP becomes horrible when you start adding in all the drop-downs, area spells, feats and other stuff that have entered DnD as a feature-creep over the last 20 years. Alot of that is the design of DnD itself, not a problem with TBwP as such, but really it gets to the point that you are spending most of your time in a pause screen anyway, and that feels even more unnatural than a turn-based system.

My ideal: RTS, but only when my thoughts an intentions can be relayed by voice, eye motion and hell, pure thought, why not?

25 years from now, I'm calling it!
 
woo1108 said:
fred2 said:
RTwP worked pretty well in all my RPG classics.
Click to expand...
How about Torment itself? combat of Torment is really a torment. it doesn't worked well in Torment. so no need to follow the footspet of failure.
Click to expand...
The combat of Torment was terrible, because it was terribly implemented(maybe because developers never seen it as a priority, for example Baldur's gate RTwP system is far more complex than Fallout TB).

So you suggest that instead of improving the implementation, they should jump to another system altogether, because it works so well in tactical games like JA2 ?!

woo1108 said:
fred2 said:
5. This is not JA2, nor any other tactical game. It's suppose to be a story heavy RPG (not combat heavy).
Click to expand...
and not a baldur's gate or neverwinter nights too. even story is heavier than combat, that can't explain why Torment 2 should use RTwP. even story is heavier than combat, still it can have great tactical combat because great plot and great combat are not against each other. atually, to use unique system properly, I think TB is the best way.
Click to expand...
Note how you keep saying that "TB is the best way" and yet you didn't supplied any reason for it. As for why I think that Torment should use RTwP, its because there is no universally best system, every system has its pros and cons and which lends better to a specific gameplay.

The difference between the two is that in RTwP you give your orders and they are executed simultaneously(so you can react or interpt other characters actions), while in TB the combat is played in turns during which you can do AP worth heart desire. Fallout TB worked very well for its setting, but it can't handle basics things like interrupting a spellcaster), and it would become really annoying if you had to pause for every stupid encounter(think ant hunting in broken hills tunnels with a big party). There are more complex TB implementations, such as in JA2, V13 or ToEE, which certainly offers great tactical gameplays, but those are system for combat heavy games, you just can't learn the complexity of such system with only few encounters, and I don't want that change of focus on a story heavy RPG.

As far I concerned the vote is between: Better combat and Better combat + much more of it. While the only pros for TB in that setting, that it will be easier(time/money) for the devs to port their system from wasteland2.
 
yarga said:
I've never been very happy with either TB or TBwP, both have their benefits and their drawbacks.

"you go then I go" is not only an unrealistic sim of a "real" combat, but its just. takes. so. looooong.

RTwP becomes horrible when you start adding in all the drop-downs, area spells, feats and other stuff that have entered DnD as a feature-creep over the last 20 years. Alot of that is the design of DnD itself, not a problem with TBwP as such, but really it gets to the point that you are spending most of your time in a pause screen anyway, and that feels even more unnatural than a turn-based system.

My ideal: RTS, but only when my thoughts an intentions can be relayed by voice, eye motion and hell, pure thought, why not?

25 years from now, I'm calling it!
Click to expand...
*shrugs* I never had such problems in Baldurs Gate. The good thing about the game was, that you could set spells and actions in such a way that you had really only to pause the combat if you faced a very difficult situation. And even here the fight was usually fast enough over.

I am not saying that Baldurs Gates combat is the best way to go but if done well it can be an good option.
 
I was trying to find examples of "simultaneous turn" systems that I like but CiV V wasn't very good in multi iirc, all sorts of dumb things happened as a result of it.

I had to go back to Avalon Hill's "Spitfire!" for the last time I liked a simulturn system, and that was a PnP.

Basically each side sketched out their turns on a sheet, using the moves available to them, and then they passed their moves to the other player and both moved each others' game pieces (spitfire squad v messerschmitt) until moves were done and you saw if either side had achieved a firing position.

I was cumbersome, but fair, and I recall thinking "This really ought to be in a computer game, not a PnP".

I think TB w Reaction is one way games split the difference, especially X-Com (orioginal) and its extensive reactive fire/panic system. I still feel like someone is out there who can make a great simulturn CRPG system, but it ain't me.
 
They seemed to have nailed the vibe of the original, good. Extra blue and purple lights never hurt...
 
I can only wonder as to the story...the original is possibly the greatest story ever conveyed in a computer game, I hope Thomas has his best thinking cap on, we need another epic.
 
That chill down my spine lasted a long time and now lingers somewhere behind my eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top