RPG Combat System...

[Ausir]

Arcanum's TB pretty much sucked - so did Pool of Radiance 2's.

 

[MacD]

Depends

Sorry, but it really does; afai'm concerned, theres three ways of doing it: TB, realtime and the hybrid thing (a la KotOR and some Final Fantasy's).

The realtime thing gives you mindless slaughter, which is fun in it's own way (especially when I get back home, tired) and gives you titles like Dungeon Siege and it's ancestor Diablo. literally mindless hack and slash which has little depth, but much fun and easy on the casual gamer (or the hardcore gamer who wants a casual fightfest). Hell, this can be seen in FPS' too...sure, there is some use of tactics, but it's adrenaline based twitchfest at the heart of it. And it has to be: slow the realtime combat down, and you get a boring game (or something for the hardcore nuts, like Operation Flashpoint...lotsa fun for the specialist, but not something you'd give most people).

Then there's TB. This has lotsa depth and requires you to think about what you do, in what order you do it and what weapons you use (if done right). Great stuff, but most definitely not for the casual guy (unless you can ease 'em into it and get them hooked). The very fact that there's actual game mechanics at work (and not just who's faster with the mouse) means there's stuff to be read so you know what's hapening...and that's just inherently casualgamer unfriendly. But it can still be a critical and financial success, as xcom, fallout and other have demonstrated. It's a slightly more convoluted way of playing chess, really

And finally there's the hybrid...which I just don't like. It gets boring fast because it gets you to either micromanage to such an extent that you might as well be playing TB. Plus there's not that much startegy going on...there's onl;y really the illusion of strategy (hey, I pause and select...well, basically the same grnade with a different skin) but due to the nature of the realtime component, making strategic weapoin choices redundant. KotOR shows this off real well (or should that be bad?): the time it takes you to switch from short range wapons to long range allows the enemy to cover that distance, meaning your weapon change was not only meaningless, but actually counterproductive...which means you're effectively stuck with a single weapon, which means that really, you shouldn't be playing a hybrid but a realtime game! The only place where this kind of thing works well (ie the pause'n'play method of hybrid) is with magic (selectring different spells).

Anyway, there's more to be said, but basically I think it really depends on your market and the type of game you make (Isaid soory, didn't I ): for short, casual games of the MS solitaire type, you want realtime stuff. For something longer, which isn't for everyone, go TB (and hey, chess isn't for everyone either). No five minute games in the office, though
And if you just wanna bore me, go for the hybrid...make me think I'm doing realtime without any of the benefits of that gametype (like quick reflexes meaning something or somesuch) !/whilst at the same time/! giving me the impression that I'm playing TB, without the use of strategic decisions that that form of gameplay usually gives. I'd go so far as to say that no hybrid game has ever had real good gameplay mechanics; KotOR and FF V-VII lokked great, sounded great, had cool plots...but ultimately the combat was unfullfilling and stale by the time you'd killed your 20th enemy.

 

[Voss]

Have to be TB?

No.. but its very preferable. The tactical and thinking aspects of turn based makes it far superior to any real time system. And when there are complex aspects to the combat options (change of stance, called shots a la Fallout, manuevering for position, and D&D rules like flanking), turned based is the only option, since real time simply can't handle it.

Follow-up questions-

Real time only works well with a single character under player control (Diablo 2 did real time very well, but of course the whole game was built around combat). But its only really workable with an action rpg like D2. With a hardcore RPG... the streamlined, rush rush aspect of the combat is probably going to bleed to much into other aspects of the game. Character creation definitely, since the focus of character building will be on faster, faster, kill, kill aspects of combat.

As for followers...
I find a mix to be preferable- fully controllable in TB combat (particularly if its complex or extremely tactical) AI simply is sufficient to make intelligent decisions. But they should definitely have the capacity to do their own thing outside of combat, and should be able to override certain orders- no paladins killing kids type of thing. (And not just whining about it later, I mean leaving the party or turning hostile during combat if its an extreme situation)

Hope these were helpful thoughts.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I disagree with realtime being just a mindless clickfest of slaughter; after all, tactics decided in turn-based are the same if decided in real time. Depending on how it's made it can give players many combat options. Unfortunately while this would work in theory, the application i've seen trough and trough on CRPGs is just repetitve, when it has the possibility to be more.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I disagree with realtime being just a mindless clickfest of slaughter; after all, tactics decided in turn-based are the same if decided in real time.

Somebody made this example in another thread: try to play chess in real time. 'nuff said.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

I disagree with realtime being just a mindless clickfest of slaughter; after all, tactics decided in turn-based are the same if decided in real time.

Somebody made this example in another thread: try to play chess in real time. 'nuff said.

trying to play chess in real time is like trying to do sex it turn based . Both just do not work.

Darling I moved and now it is the end of the round. Let us try to think what we should do in the next round.


Well sex and chess are both different than rpg remember.So the qualify equally as good or bad examples.

Chris.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I disagree with realtime being just a mindless clickfest of slaughter; after all, tactics decided in turn-based are the same if decided in real time.

Somebody made this example in another thread: try to play chess in real time. 'nuff said.

Hmm, no. You seem to be missing the point. Chess is unplayable in real time due to the nature of the game, not because of turn-based or real time conventions around it. If a game presents the player with a set of elements which work in both RT or TB, then they can both be used in both systems. Why is it that moving towards an enemy and slicing him, then running away is possible in TB and not in RT? Why is that throwing a grenade into a group of enemies, then running behing a wall would work in TB and not in RT? Why would opening fire with burst mode against a group of enemies in TB would be different than RT? It is possible, specially with a single player CRPG. With a party-based CRPG, that tends to get too chaotic and messy (if possible at all). In a single player CRPG, all elements are centered around the main character (and possibly a sidekick/henchman), so it's easy to present an array of situations and tactics for the character, which would work either in TB or RT. I'm not saying TB=RT, i'm saying that what you decide to do in combat will work wheter in TB or RT; whatever means you apply to reach a succesful combat outcome will work regardless of what combat system is running in the background. You could point out that TB lets you decide how to carefully play, while RT is too hectic to allow to come up with the same strategy, therefore it would be unable to provide the same strategy; as you're not playing at the same pace, you're doing it in real time, your decisions have a definite urgency to them. While i'm not saying there isn't a sense of a "forced" decision-making in RT, i am saying that the fact that its running in RT does not make it impossible to use the same tactics you'd use if it were TB; merely that it works the same way, despite you'd probably have to adapt to its " increased speed".

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Arcanum's TB pretty much sucked - so did Pool of Radiance 2's.

Arcanum's TB pretty much sucked

Correct and you know why ? it had no initiative. The player always starts first. Always.

Let me pimp myshelf by saying that Arcanum combat is much better if you play my Car Arcanum mod instead of ordinary Arcanum.I wish that i can find a way to add initiative .That would make it even better/end of pimping.

 

[Spazmo]

TB vs. RT? Well, shit, this is certainly something we've never discussed before.

Anyways, which is better depends on the game. TB combat is best in games that are genuinely trying to be CRPGs. Real time systems require a certain amount of player skill and don't rely on character ability enough to have a place in proper RPGs. Real time with pause is just a double copout. The game is real time because real time is kewl, but they have to toss in a pause button because real time doesn't really work.

However, real time combat is best in action CRPGs--Diablo with turns would kinda be missing the point. Also, in a game that doesn't focus on combat as a method of progressing (think PST), RT combat is tolerable since it won't matter as much.

And, of course, any game that wants to throw hordes of rats at the PC in the late game probably should be RT.

Party vs. single PC: I've always preferred being in charge of only one character. Let me equip and give general guidelines to party members, but don't make me control them. Beyond issues of role playing and whatnot, I don't really want to control my whole damn party. When I have a whole party to control, i often find myself not using some characters because I can't be bothered to. If all characters but the PC were AI controlled--and good AI, if you please--I really think it'd just work better.

 

[HanoverF]

in all of your minds does combat have to be TB to be game that you all like?

Despite the hive mind rumors that may be going around, I'm not sure we'd all agree. I have liked games with RT combat, and I've disliked games with TB. However, I cannot think of a CRPG with RT combat where I enjoyed the combat, I've liked them in spite of the combat.

is there a form of real-time combat you guys are fine with

Haven't met it yet

what are your opinions of single player w/followers/henchmen vs a fully controlled party?

I prefer followers/henchmen

 

[Lemon]

Realtime that relies only on stats is quite dull (morrowind), your better aping Die By The Sword or Blade of Darkness.

 

[Petey_the_Skid]

My preference: Turnbased

Thoughts Concerning RT w/ Pause:

Looking over the comments stated by previous posters, and reviewing my experience with these games, I think the real problem with this type of combat is monster AND character AI. In most of these games, the party is controllable while the system is unpaused, which in my mind is a huge mistake. This leads to the player actually attempting to control his party while in realtime, and because it is pretty much physically impossible to do so as fast as a machine can react, leads to lots of mishaps and character deaths. I've also found ranged weapons to be for the most part useless, or limited to a single shot, as enemies close in seconds.

The only truly enjoyable RT w/ Pause game where I enjoyed the combatwas the granddaddy of them all, Darklands, where pausing was necessary to issue new orders, the drawback being it's somewhat hackneyed AI(actually i've found this drawback in the other rt with pause games i've played as well). If character AI could be improved(I noticed something in BG 2 called character scripts which might have done this, but never played it long enough to experiment with them) to the point where the party will react without direct player control at the begining of combat e.g. the party's archer spots a monster down a hallway, possibly one that is even off screen, he shouts a warning to the others, and begin's firing his bow at the beastie, all without the player having to scramble around trying to organize as he realizes 20 or 30 goblins have shown up on the rightside of his screen. That or as soon as enemies are spotted, it immediately pauses, and the first commands are ordered to initiate combat(this is how darklands worked, and it wasn't too bad).

Well enough psychobabble for now.

 

[MrBrown]

If there's full party control, then turn-based. If no party, or no control over it, then real-time. Depends on the type of game too.

 

[Ausir]

Fallout has no (or minimum) control over party, and I don't imagine Fallout without TB.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I think a lot of us are being terribly narrow minded when it comes to the subject of a game's combat system. I've recently been playing Beyond Good and Evil (A great game all of you should get) and it has multiple echelons of gameplay in it, including first person and third person real time combat, races, puzzles, and it does it all rather well.

Remember those minigames from KOTOR? They look like cheap, poorly-made garbage in comparison to the minigames in BG&E which are not only authentic, but well designed.

But I digress, we were discussing combat, weren't we? Well, from what I've experienced in BG&E I was wondering why the same principle of having multiple gameplay layers in the same game be implemented in an RPG. Instead of having a vanilla turn-based combat hack and slash game like TOEE, or a game with an epic storyline but lacklustre pause & play combat like Baldur's Gate 2, I was wondering why a game couldn't have both real time and turn based gameplay in the same game.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting that the game be any way like the way FAllout 3 was going to be, or how Arcanum (a failure in terms of combat) turned out to be. Keep an open mind - I'm referring to having real time combat (Jedi Academy style) with WASD/mouse control during certain sequences, such as one-on-one battles against interesting monsters when you have only yourself and maybe a single teammate to help you, while having a full blown turn based mode for the larger, more tactical battles involving up to 3-8 party members against a boss monster, or against a party of enemies consisting of similar, or larger numbers.

The combat would vary from scene to scene.

Just as well, it'd be good to implement a full blown 'adventure mode' in the game, in areas without enemies to kill and only puzzles to solve. It'd be done in 3rd person and controlled via the keypad or WASD controls. I'm saying this because I'm really sick and tired of the whole Command & Conquer style concept of ordering your guys around the map just by pointing and clicking.

That said, I am not interested in 'real time combat' a la Dungeon Siege and Diablo 2. These are the worst, most uninteractive forms of real time combat you can ever see in a game. Diablo 2 (and blade & sword) being only slightly more interactive than Dungeon Siege. It's the one button of DS versus the two buttons of Diablo 2. I'd hardly call that entertainment.

It'd also be good to only start off with a single main character (a la Fallout and Baldur's Gate) and pick up NPCs along the way. It'd be really difficult to pull off an solo adventure/RPG/action/TBS game if you have to control an entire party of your own design. It'd also limit the amount of story you can put into the game because party-based games more or less limit themselves to hack and slash dungeon crawlers like TOEE, Wizardry 8 and Icewind Dale.

Anyway, nobody says you have to skimp on any of the game concepts just because of the abundance of gameplay layers. You could talk about 'being realistic when it comes to the budget' or things like that, but those are excuses made by lazy, unimaginative persons. If Ubisoft, Ion Storm with Anachronox (and some would argue Squaresoft as well) could pull off something like that, I don't see why anyone else can't.

Implementing all these things into a single game would give it a LOT of depth.

Big storyline + well developed character system + interesting NPCs + very interactive environment + adreneline based combat + intelligent puzzles (e.g. nothing like what was seen in KOTOR - those puzzles are made for children and they insulted my intelligence) + tactical turn based combat with interactive environments and a multitude of choices in actions available (e.g. TOEE or JA2) = best game ever.

Let's see something new.

 

[Flink]

I really prefer ToEE's system over any other so far. The TB combat which incorporated so much more then any other D&D game before was superb. I also like full control over my followers. While it is a tad demystifying, I really like this option better then having a sub-par AI character (I've yet to see a game that pulls the AI NPC of good enough, and I doubt I will in a long time.) on my team. Being bursted in the back(Fallout) or just seeing my NPC barbarian stand and look at me as my weak mage gets clobbered by goblins (NWN) ruined it for me.

I consider the combat in The Temple of Elemental Evil to be close to perfect. Had the game only had a better, more interesting and engaging story, (Arcanumish perhaps?) it would probably have been my favorite RPG of all time. Fallout still hold the top spot as it is since it got both story and combat right(Not counting the sometimes annoying follower behavior.) something which I haven't seen in a long, long time...

 

[Whipporowill]

does combat have to be TB to be game that you all like?

No, but TB usually makes a game better. Maybe I'm just SLOW, or old - but I prefer it like in the olden days.

is there a form of real-time combat you guys are fine with ?

Diablo was certainly an example of interesting RT design, but it does get boring - you play more for loot and level gain, than the actual combat - no real sense of accomplishment (make combat last longer, tougher opponents?). RT works in smaller-scale (WC, C&C etc) strategy games, since it's about being the one most in control - the general with the best preparation and overview usually wins. RT combat is a must in games that cater to the action crowd, and as for such an action to work rpg I'd say that'd have to be a one man show or one with REALLY good henchmen ai. RT+P doesn't do it for me - too many times have I just had my wizard standing idle, contrary to orders, and pathfinding and ai in RT are not worth mentioning.

and what are your opinions of single player w/followers/henchmen vs a fully controlled party?

Followers - or rather companions, controlled by the ai in combat (on/off switch - sure thing), manageable inventory but NO lvl up managment, please. I enjoy travelling with friends, not with bloody mindless meatpuppets. Sheesh.

But as for what people say, rather go good RT than crappy hybrids, but the preference is TB - ToEE and SS style. If you can do something new and interesting, hit me.

 

[Sol Invictus]

When real-time combat is done it should be done properly and realistically. Neither KOTOR nor NWN do this adequately, and that is especially evident in the use of ranged weapons. Would a soldier seriously stand in the middle of a battlefield and fire his gun without moving an inch?

Maybe, if he's suicidal.

Otherwise, you'd expect Carth and Canderous to duck behind cover and fire from there, doing rolls to avoid shots and flanking the enemy from various angles. Bioware simply doesn't put much thought into their implementation of ranged weapons. They just freaking stand there firing their weapon like a couple of idiots while everybody else does summersaults and kung-fu moves in melee combat. What gives?

The combat in KOTOR is too simplistic, uninteractive and completely unfulfilling.

I say that if you're going to implement real time combat, do it properly, and in a way that would be fun for the gamer. There's just no way to do real time combat interactively without turning the game into a 3rd person action game, and quite honestly I don't see the problem with that if statistics allow for quicker movement, more damage and combat feats are implemented as action keys via mouse or keyboard. The party-member AI should however be good enough to use these feats and tactics when not under the player's control. As for the player controlling his NPCs, I don't see any inherent problem with that depending on how the game is designed, but the game should always focus on a central character (e.g. you) and not a party of player-developed characters, as I happen to be in favor of NPCs, not more PCs.

Despite all that I've said I think that if you have to pick between real time combat (NWN/BG/KOTOR-esque) and turn-based combat (TOEE, JA2, Silent Storm) I'd go with the latter. It certainly offers a brand of depth that simplified C&C-esque real time can never compare to. If you want to do real time, do it right.

 

[Sol Invictus]

As an extension of Saint's reply, which lists some great TB systems (even though it leaves out JA2 and Wizardry's PB system,) can anyone list a TB combat system that hasn't worked? I honestly can't think of one.

Pool of Radiance 2. Boring combat galore. I don't think I have to go into how much of a disaster this game truly was on multiple aspects.

Arcanum. The combination of real-time and turn-based does not mix well into a single system. It's akin to mixing ice cream with beef gravy.

Fallout. Don't look surprised - it was way too simplistic, and that is a problem. Fighting rats in power armor isn't my idea of a good time. Fallout was a damn good RPG (arguably the best) but it suffered from a piss poor, uninteractive combat system.

But given its date of release, that's pretty much forgivable. X-Com might have been hailed as one of the best turn-based tactical games ever made, but if it were released today alongside competitors JA2 and Silent Storm it would look like a poorly rehearsed comedy.

I'd imagine that a better game would combine the role-playing freedom of Fallout with a combine engine comparable to TOEE. It doesn't have to be as complex as Silent Storm's to be great.

On the other hand I can list a lot of games with RT combat that I haven't liked. My favourite RT game would be Diablo 2, yet I think I like the game in spite of its combat, rather than because of it. The same can be said of the IE games.

It depends on what kind of real time combat you are referring to. Real-time games are, for the most part, simplistic as shit because of lazy (yes, lazy.) and unimaginative developers. Diablo 2 was 'simplistic' real time at its best, but the bar doesn't have to stop there. Who says you can't have a 3rd person action game with proper combat for an RPG?

Just because everyone's trying to develope a Command & Conquer clone with stats in it doesn't mean we have to buy those games, endorse them, play them, or even refer to the poorest examples of any form of gameplay as the bar for 'real time combat'. The fact that people are calling KOTOR's combat both complex and well-designed not only sickens me, it also makes me sad for the future of RPGs. I enjoyed KOTOR, I really did, but the combat was its most grievous error.

It wouldn't be so bad if these RPGs had pathfinding as good as that exhibited in Tiberian Sun, but they don't - so that's something to think about.

You musn't limit yourself to the belief that real time combat can only be as complex as Dungeon Siege as that's like suggesting literature can only be as complex as Harry Potter.

Concerning Turn-Based, it should be done properly and in a way that's enjoyable for the player. Temple of Elemental Evil did it right by including the Concurrent Enemy Moves option, which cuts down a lot of the time it takes to wait for the enemy to move - something which is unarguably the worst shortcoming of turn-based combat. Silent Storm is extremely guilty of this flaw as enemy/ally/civilian turns can take up to 320 seconds (I timed it) on certain maps which is far from acceptable due to the fact that each character moves individually, and each individual character takes from 5 to 10 seconds to finish his turn. The fact that the civilians tend to waste your time by running around in circles, or worse yet, running into the line of fire to see what's going on (a serious bug) only adds to the irritation I experience whenever I play Silent Storm and detracts from an overall enjoyable experience.

 

[DemonKing]

I really don't mind what system is used as long as the game is fun with regards to combat.

I guess if you ask a lot of hard core CRPGers many will prefer turn-based. TOEE got it pretty much right although there were only a few really good "hard-won" combats in it. When I think back to the gold-box games I can remember many memorable combats with multiple opponents that took me (sometimes) hours to complete and multiple reloads. In TOEE I can only remember maybe 2 or 3 fights like this. Maybe this was due to the over-adherance to the original module. In any case, the concurrent enemy turns in TOEE helped alot unlike the disaster that was POR2.

Phase-based like Wizardry also works well for me - but I think the average gamer might not be so entertained by the "pick your choices and sit back and watch" style play. Also in Wizardry 8 some turns took an awful long time to complete.

I quite like the pause and play RT games like the IE games. I think this works quite well in isometric games where you have a good overview of the battle. RT pause and play isometric combat, while not true to PnP role-playing, to my mind captures the essence of RPG combat and is quick, visceral and fun (which means it can appeal to other than hard-core gamers). I don't think it is quite the same in 3rd or 1st person games. I had a few problems with the combat in KOTOR for example, where it was difficult to get my entire party to retreat together and I'm not sure if scripts could be turned off (which made everyone act independently again the moment you stopped taking personal control).

RT combat in CRPGs does nothing for me. Diablo was a click fest, Arcanum terrible whichever combat mode you played in, and the less said about Morrowind "combat" the better.

As for NPCs - I prefer full control (in combat - outside they can do what they like). Until AI gets to the stage where NPC spell casters aren't dumping multiple fireballs on kobolds, emptying full clips into the backs of their comrades and initiating combat by charging into large clumps of enemies when my character is stuck on 2 hp, I would rather have full control. It may not be realistic, but it is more fun - and essential for good strategic combat, IMO.

 

[DemonKing]

<deleted due to accidental multiple-post.>

 

[Deathy]

Turn based versus real time. This is a topic that has divided CRPG geek forums since the beginning of time.
Both have their pros and cons, so the choice is basically down to weighing these against your projects goals. We all have our preferences, prejudices and/or irrational hatreds when it comes to a particular system.

If we can consider that there is a scale with Turn Based and Real Time combat systems as polar opposites, there are the other alternatives, such as Phase Based and Real Time with pause between the two. There is a possibility that a system could be conceived that would shatter this definition completely.

Another interesting thing about combat systems in nearly all games is that they are essentially abstractions of real combat. In that sense, the realism of combat can be taken lightly. When this idea is applied to CRPG's, where combat systems are based a lot more on character statistics than in other genres, and therefore combat systems have more abstraction, the real-ness (I don't think "reality" fits in this context) is not important at all. That essentially eliminates choice in that area, if you're intending to make a real RPG. Combat doesn't have to be real. Hell, it could be just a bunch of dice rolls with some pretty animation for all that it matters. But that's not the only factor.

You've also got the fun factor. This is perhaps the most important, as, generally, people play games in order to have fun. To have fun, you have to be doing something. Depending on the graphical quality of the game, virtually automated combat may get you the sales volume you need, I'd imagine that quite a few people have fun when they are being wowed by pretty graphics. The developers of Dungeon Siege should be happy that most of their customers are too mentally challenged to realize that pretty graphics are a heap prettier in movies than games. This means, that to attract a more intelligent gamer (if you need to), you must make the game, and generally, in the combat heavy CRPG genre, that means the combat, fun. This is where difficulties set in. People have very different ideas of what makes combat fun. Some find tactical thinking, such as what is generally found in Turn Based games, is what fun is all about. Others prefer a nail biting, adrenaline rushing, edge of your seat action to satiate their need for fun. A mix of the two is essentially impossible if one bases a system off of previous combat systems. Phase Based offers a tactical experience similar to that of turn based, while Real Time with Pause seems to add the worst components of both Turn Based (slowness) and Real Time (lack of tactics), to make an incredibly dull system.

Now, in the concept of a true RPG, fun wouldn’t be a factor, and let us get back to that for my final point on combat systems. Earlier, I mentioned that true RPG’s have combat that is essentially based on character statistics. This completely rules out the player having direct control over the combat. In a tactical turn based system, performance in combat is based on the players tactical ability, and in real time combat, performance in combat is based on the players reflexes. Neither system is optimal in a true roleplaying sense. I think assuming tactical ability is pretty much as bad as assuming good reflexes. There will be people who have little to no tactical ability, just as there will be people with bad reflexes. This also has impacts on fun, but I think those are fairly obvious.
My conclusion on combat, is that if you are going to make a “True CRPG”, combat should be automated. Otherwise, do whatever your target audience prefers. (A possible tangent of this comment would be to discuss the merits of different target audiences, the effects their preferences have on game development (esp. costs) and the expected sales volume that would come from different target audiences.) Now, with automation not being especially fun, You can essentially count out the idea of combat in a “True CRPG” being fun.

_______
Reference: Treatise on Combat to Pink Floyd. Gareth Davies, 2002 http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21


I’ve written on the topic of what type of party (if any) before, so I’ll just post the links rather than reiterate my opinions yet again.

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1926

I thought that now we have a variety of users with differring opinions (unlike 8 months ago, when there was really only one opinion), it is now time to start digging up old and boring topics so that we can have some kind of real discussion on them.

First of all, we need to define what kind of party control we are talking about. There are two main types that I wish to discuss (since I have a different point of view on both of them.)

• Player created parties
  I don't really have a problem with these kinds of parties, because you can pretend that you are roleplaying a group of characters, their social interactions with each other, the world and the story in which they find themselves in, instead of just a single character. This allows a lot more depth, and can be effective in emulating a P&P RPG session for some people. However, it depends on the style of game as to whether it is appropriate, some games (and I'll refuse mentioning any specifically, as that's one of the best ways to derail a thread, and I don't want to do that from the first post) intend to project a feeling of loneliness, which would only be destroyed by having extra party members around.
  In CRPG's, party based, with characters created by the player, can be a good option, probably the best, considering the alternatives for party control.

• NPC's - Completely controlled by player.
  In my opinion, this would have to be the stupidest genre convention that I have ever seen. In the first place, it was introduced as a way of fixing the problems with companion AI. In effect, it acts like somebody has completely missed the point of NPC's to begin with, and has just made matters worse.
  An example of this stupidity would be a situation in which a player directs an NPC to do something that the NPC's personality disagree's with. What do we do here? Do we take control away from the player, thus causing player frustration? Do we do nothing, resulting in the NPC's personality prior to joining the player being completely unimportant, or do we do something completely stupid, like having the NPC complain that it had to do something it didn't want to? Could we have a morale stat, that would make the character leave you if you did this too much? All things considered, I think that this solution just makes things a lot more difficult from a design standpoint. The problem hasn't been solved, just made a lot harder, due to idiotic problem solving techniques.
  Time for a quote from The Simpsons, one that I've used in just about every discussion about this topic.
  "I know! We'll dig our way out!"
  It makes a lot more sense if it's put into context, watch the episode "Homer the Detective" in Season 5.

• AI controlled NPC's
  This isn't really all that bad in theory, since you don't control the NPC's, you don't get frustrated when they don't do exactly what you want them to. In practice, they often, due to poor AI programming, do things that they shouldn't do, considering their supposed personality (Shooting you in the back with automatic weapons). Basically, for this to work, you'd have to spend a lot of time in programming AI scripts for companion NPC's. And, while you're at it, why not start programming better AI for enemy NPC's?
  AI takes up a lot of time, effort and skill to do right, and I'm assuming that in the games that have full NPC companion control, the developers were restricted in one of those areas.
  AI is one of those areas that is neglected, as the average gamer doesn't really notice how things work that often.

• A mix of the two. Part one - Player controlled party and joinable NPC's
  What should you do here? On one hand, inconsistency is bad, you have a group of characters that you can control, and a group that follows you, but can't really be controlled. It can lead to player frustration if you don't clearly define which character is which. On the other hand, it can be quite useful to have joinable NPC's as a means of plot development. It's a touchy subject, and one I haven't put too much thought into so far. I'll leave it for another day, and possibly another thread.

• A mix of the two. Part two - Some player control over companion NPC's.
  The PC is generally the leader of the group, so it seems reasonable that the player should have a degree of control over the rest of the party ie: what he can do with vocal commands. I haven't really put too much thought into this either, but it has been done before, with differing degrees of success. It may be the ideal solution to the problem of NPC control. But I'll leave this one to be discussed in depth to somebody else.

In conclusion, I think, out of the many ways of doing party based CRPG's, have a party of Player Characters seems to be the best, as it can provide more depth, and has some degree of logical justification (the player is the party itself).

Thanks for reading this - It's a bit longer than what I had intended.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Pool of Radiance 2. Boring combat galore. I don't think I have to go into how much of a disaster this game truly was on multiple aspects.

Pool of Radiance 2's combat's major problem was the movement speed of the enemies. If it had a combat animation speed slider, it wouldn't have been bad.

Arcanum. The combination of real-time and turn-based does not mix well into a single system. It's akin to mixing ice cream with beef gravy.

Arcanum's turn based had one huge flaw, too many APs. When you(or the enemies) can move across a map and close the distance between you and an enemy during your first turn, that's just boring. It definitely sucks when it comes to ranged weapon fighting because there's no advantage to having range.

Fallout. Don't look surprised - it was way too simplistic, and that is a problem. Fighting rats in power armor isn't my idea of a good time. Fallout was a damn good RPG (arguably the best) but it suffered from a piss poor, uninteractive combat system.

Fighting rats in power armor is a fault of the designers, not the system. There shouldn't be rats in late game areas.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Pool of Radiance 2's combat's major problem was the movement speed of the enemies. If it had a combat animation speed slider, it wouldn't have been bad.

Don't forget the fact that almost all of the locations in the game were completely dull due to two of the following aspects: too large and full of weak enemies. This was a design problem rather than a combat system problem, but the lack of combat options and feats made the experience a lot worse than it could have been.

Arcanum's turn based had one huge flaw, too many APs. When you(or the enemies) can move across a map and close the distance between you and an enemy during your first turn, that's just boring. It definitely sucks when it comes to ranged weapon fighting because there's no advantage to having range.

The lack of combat options were also an issue in Arcanum. The most you you could do was run around, hit things, or use a spell. There weren't any options for a fighter to use in combat besides the basics.

Fighting rats in power armor is a fault of the designers, not the system. There shouldn't be rats in late game areas.

That is true, and you have mentioned it before, and I have agreed. However, the simplicity of the combat system left much to be desired. You could shoot, move, or use something in your inventory, and nothing more. It would have been nice if they added more options to the combat in Fallout 2, which should have been more than just an expansion, because it certainly felt like one. I for one would have preferred more tactics instead of just standing stationary in the middle of the street, facing your enemy and shooting your gun at him while he did the same thing.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Don't forget the fact that almost all of the locations in the game were completely dull due to two of the following aspects: too large and full of weak enemies. This was a design problem rather than a combat system problem, but the lack of combat options and feats made the experience a lot worse than it could have been.

Pool of Radiance 2 actually had some fairly interesting combat locations. The problem was more the dungeons were too large and there were just way too many monsters all around there. However, the battles with the orc chieftans were nice. The Shadow traps were pretty slick, especially the continual darkness trapped area. There were a few interesting things with some mages around the first level of the Dwarven Dungeon as well. I didn't get very far in the game due to having to backtrack through the cleared parts of the dungeon, but the combat wasn't bad.

Of course PoR2 would have been a hell of a lot better if there were more combat options, sure.

The lack of combat options were also an issue in Arcanum. The most you you could do was run around, hit things, or use a spell. There weren't any options for a fighter to use in combat besides the basics.

Aimed striking was about the only option for melee, that's true. However, melee was far superior to ranged just because of the AP thing.

That is true, and you have mentioned it before, and I have agreed. However, the simplicity of the combat system left much to be desired. You could shoot, move, or use something in your inventory, and nothing more. It would have been nice if they added more options to the combat in Fallout 2, which should have been more than just an expansion, because it certainly felt like one. I for one would have preferred more tactics instead of just standing stationary in the middle of the street, facing your enemy and shooting your gun at him while he did the same thing.

You could also aim at body locations. You could switch attack modes for weapons, including being able to either throw a spear or do a few melee attacks. Naturally, you could also switch between burst and single shot for those weapons with both.

Fallout wasn't designed to be a straight up combat focused game like ToEE, Silent Storm, JA2, and so on. Hell, it's system is more complex than Avernum's system which is a dungeon crawler/combat game. However, even Avernum's simplistic combat system works damned well and is pretty enjoyable and tactical, without having a half dozen types of melee attack. Of course, spells are what makes it really tactical - especially against things like Mung Demons.