>Humbug.
triCritical said:
Again this to me sounds like bad design. Why should puzzles be in CRPG's anyway? I think the best puzzle I found in a CRPG was the shields in the military base in Fallout 1. The reason is because they were somewhat plausable and that if you were smart enough you could use a radio phone as a remote control for the shields. If you weren't... well then you had to lose some hitpoints.
Puzzles aren't necessary, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. Puzzles just for the heck of it are a bad idea, though.
This is how puzzles should be, smart characters should be allowed to figure out things that the dumb ones can't, and it should be totally irrelevant to what the player knows.
True, that.
Well it depends on what level of tactics. Lions in the African wilderness use surprise tactics on gazelles, and likewise gazelles use tactics defense tactics against lions. Anyhow a good system should somehow reward you tactically for being smarter, and good systems do, like SPECIAL. Let say you are Gromnir the big ugly half-orc in SPECIAL, and you aren't very smart and you concentrate in unarmed. Well then with each level you progress you will get less points put into your respective skills like unarmed. You may never learn how to do the most l33t unarmed attacks like haymaker and drop kick.
True, though, would Gromnir be intelligent enough to keep investing in melee? :wink: Would the low Int allow him to realize he's investing in it to survive, or that he should do it?
As for other tactics, I think it is obvious from historical combat and animals, that some tactics are innate or instinct. Obviously, seeing a lion go for the throat kind of give you the idea that the lion knows that it is a very sensitive part of the animal.
In the example of the lions, isn't that linked to knowledge passed down genetically, and not exclusive to tactics developed by them? Humans can devise their own tactics, but it entails a higher level of reasoning than animals, which are basically relying on instinct only. I was under the impression that it wasn't the deciding factor.
If implemented correctly you would lose no control. I don't think morale should keep someone from committing suicide in a fight they can't win. I don't know how much use a morale score would be for a character you control, since I think morale would kind of go hand in hand with the thoughts of the players, intelligence aside. But I agree, I did not like it when BG force my characters to run like scared chickens when they got close to dying. Morale is a stat that is better used with AI.
::thumbs up::
And a good non-action CRPG can do this. I can tell a character to move to a place exactly, I can tell them to punch there opponent in the face and then run. As a matter a fact I would say a game like Fallout and JA2has more control over the character then an action game like Halfl Life. Its just that the interface in which we issue orders is different. Now I am not going to sit here and say that the PoS IE gave you much control because it didn't, but a good CRPG non-RT system usually gives you unprecedented control.
Well Fallout or JA2 give better control because of the TB system allowing for the inclusion of better and more varied controls. I'd wager HL wouldn't allow it because of the real time coupled with interface, yes. Though i think there are two different aspects of control here. In a TB system, we have control over our character's actions from a planning component (we order them about, and behold their actions being carried out); in an RT system, we have control over our character's actions from a more physical aspect (we control their every move, and execute the actions ourselves, watching an avatar or model represent it).
So where is the major difference? Well its whether or not you succeed. In action games you succeed based on your skills and CRPG's it based on your character's skills. Rarely is it your brain that determines the outcome of the battle in a CRPG.
Well, like you pointed out, in CRPGs character stats determine success rate and abilities.
Hence, why I don't call BG2 a good CRPG. Instead it is you characters stats, hence if you roleplay a character properly it should not be that hard completing a CRPG. Kind of like Fallout! I guess I like Fallout. But still you can create an interface and a TB system completely unaction-like that gives you far more control then the latest action game. Hell one of my biggest complaints about action games is that they give you very little control, and the only added control you get in FPS's is aiming. Given how much more actually goes into combat it seems like a bad compromise.
I agree that usually, action games, FPSers to be more precise, don't present enough options for combat. But that tends to be a quirk of pure FPSers; you'll notice that, even for genre-crossing games that failed in making combat interesting (Deus Ex, Morrowind), they still had the occasional good premise invested into them.
The end result may be the same but how you got there is indeed different. Its all a matter of preference, but I think for it to be a game in which you play a role, the former is more closer to the truth. The reason is that success would be based on the characters role, whereas in the latter it seems that the role was only partially what brought about success.
As you put it, its quite likely a matter of preference. If we were talking about what i'd prefer for combat - Fallout or Unreal - i'd obviously point out Fallout. But my idea was to try and bridge the gap of having characters react to your orders, and characters reacting to what you, as the player, do (not a replacement of sorts; that logic, of the character in my example only being partially responsible for success, is quite true, and it was my point, combining both efforts).
Morrowind is a perfect example, I could have a character good with sword fighting and a character bad with sword fighting. If a MW was a perfect CRPG, then I should probably not be able to win a tough fight with a sword, the problem is that I can each time, it just take more effort with running way and strafing and all the other tricks I can learn by using the current interface to my advantage. The point is that if you were to put yourself in that characters shoes without the help of taking advantage of the interface, you probably wouldn't have one.
Well winning a fight by using low combat skills, like Long Sword, don't always work just because you can run, strafe and whatnot, simply because to run or avoid being hit, you are also dependant of the character's stats. Dodging and running is always possible, but if your skill isn't high enough, they won't do any good if you plan on running away or strafing. When you're travelling the countryside and are attacked by a stray Nix Hound, running while having a low Athletics skill will only prove effective if you think you can reach a safe spot, otherwise he will catch up with you and attack you.
Well I don't think it really matters since its all 2D anyway. However, the special case you not is more of a result of the stupidy of using bows and arrows in fantasy combat. Legolas != really good way of fighting orc's. If the physics engine accurately described speed of arrows and other projectiles, all the strafing in the world would not help.
Well i pointed out 3D because usually it tends to be better in providing a more intuitive control. In 2D you'd strafe with the mouse; in 3D you'd use the WASD or directional buttons and the mouse wouldn't be necessary for strafing at all.
I won't knock a system just because its not the one I would like to play. A game like Deus Ex seems to be what you like, and plenty of people seem to like it, although its not really what I like in a CRPG.
Actually i have pointed out some problems with DX in the past, one of them being the combat system
I don't like DX's system at all. Turn-based, as i pointed out in the early stages of the post, was (and still is) my favourite combat system. For a straight up CRPG, TB is much more preferable. I merely pointed out Deus Ex because it used both a combination of player skill and character skill ,which was the system i was aiming for.
>Meanwhile, on the other side of the world...
Vault Dweller said:
PST had many stat-dependant situations including Int and Wis. The Circle of Zerthimon is the most famous example. Then when your car is missing in FO2, you can notice and follow the tracks only if you perceptive enough. In Prelude there are many examples, etc.
In FO2 when you learn about Jet, your character can talk like a scientist showing understanding of the process if he's smart enough.
Exactly. Now compare it to the total of CRPGs made to this day. Don't forget i know there are cases where this happens - my point is that many times this isn't taken into consideration, and we end up with viable, but few, examples.
Prehistoric people who hunted mammoths were hardly smart yet they developed a number of tactics that would probably be much more sophisticated then anything city dwellers like us could come up with. Sure we have computahs and shit, but they had gut survival instinct. I'd bet on the latter. In 9 AD a Roman army - one of the most famous and well-designed military systems - was defeated and annihilated by German barbarians who used tactics that the Romans weren't prepared to. You do realize how much military experience the Romans had by 9 AD? So, trust me, you are not helping, you are holding them back :wink:
Were those barbarians as retarded as the character in my example? One thing is to have barbarians who know nothing else but savagery, and combat; the other is to have someone who can't even talk or think right. In fact, in that example i gave, the character is being more of a retarded person than a stupid person. Stupid people can devise tactics, yes. Can retarded people? Would you assemble two hundred retarded people and told them to go to war? Or would you assemble two hundred idiots who could manage to think something up?
No, they aren't. Player's planning gives him a chance to use the skills and abilities of the characters with max efficiency. That's what the characters would have done if they could think for themselves (see example above). Surely you don't think that choosing who attacks whom and when to cast which spell is some tactical genius?
No, that's why i was pointing out the creation of a RT system which went beyond that.
Reflex-based actions, on the other hand, undermine abilities of the characters creating new abilities instead. For example, block is less useful because you can click and step away, early sequence is pointless because you can click faster, etc
Hence why i pointed out a system that could use both ways. I'm not trying to create something to replace TB, or to turn RT into TB. I'm merely pointing out that, aside personal preferences, you can have a system that combines character stats and player reflexes in a way that combat can depend on both, not on one of them only. I'm not forcing you to like the concept, VD (neither accepting it, for that matter).
They do, haven't you heard the complains about KOTOR puzzles?
Yes; those and the complains about NWN's usage of idiot speech trees as a gimmick, and the complaint about BG's lack of attention to incredibly low or high Intelligence scores.
I prefer to depend on my character then on my mad clicking skillz.
I think that part was obvious to everyone. :wink:
So, I guess you did miss my point. Ok, one more time: while to kill an opponent is a goal of any crpg combat, TB can allow you and even encourage different tactics (...). The moral of that story was: in RT shooting faster is better then shooting smarter.
Again, i didn't said otherwise. My complaint is that you stated "RT is about delivering max amount of damage in a min amount of time", when that applies to any combat situation in both systems. I agree that all the examples of RT we can get our hands on show that those same examples enforce that, in RT, shooting faster is better then shooting smarter. Notice, however, the difference between a system that promotes shooting faster over shooting smarter, with a situation in both systems that, despite that philosophy of RT, has the same basic premise - delivering max amount of damage in a min amount of time. This happens in both systems, despite the obvious fact that TB has several elements which allow to achieve the same goal.
If I were playing in TB? Didn't you read what I wrote? It's one of the ToEE bigger battles, my party was lvl 3-4 (1 lvl3 char, 4 lvl 4 char), if I recall correctly I was fighting against leader, lieutenant, 1 wizard, 2 witches, 3 archers, 3 xbowmen, and 4-5 footmen, and I survived! (although 3 party members were down). So I decline your request to make something up because we have an actual situation in a game that we both can play currently.
Actually i apologize for that, because for some reason, i thought you were talking of Fallout :shock: with only one character :shock: :shock: versus ten opponents. :shock:
Still in your example you state that 3 people died. Were they casualties of bad stats or bad planning?
I mentioned some examples above. The Circle fits your requirement I believe. In FO2 when you get the brain for the Skynet, you know the procedure, but you can't get the proper brain without scientific skills to calibrate the machine. Close enough?
Close.
Volourn, for one. And other people. Me included.
People complained that the vignettes were too short not that they sucked. The vignettes were supposed to provide unique starting locations based on alignments. As fas I know, they succeeded in that. There is a difference between being bored and wanting more. I'd say it's quite the opposite.
People complained that the intention of the vignettes - to give motivation to starting parties - weren't that much motivating at all (there was even a thread here not long ago, made by Spazmo, if i'm not mistaken, pointing out ways to improve that concept). The concept of different starting locations and events according to alignment were well made; however as far as motivating us fell quite short. You also pointed out the length, which was extremely short. And my point was that you should consider the vignettes in the same way you consider some elements of combat in MW. You state there isn't a point in pointing out the good aspects of something that failed overal, so it's only fair you should do the same with ToEE's vignettes.
Are you making up definitions and rules as we go? Turn-based means that people take turns. How and when is less important and sometimes irrelevant. Some games have them, some not. Currently we discuss two opposite systems: TB and RT, whereas one being based on turns, another on simultaneous moves. That's the difference.
My point is that you claim anything with turns is turn-based, and that sequence and initiative aren't necessary, and possibly irrelevant, when in fact, in turn-based
combat, they are often essential. Who is changing rules? You've just stated two of the more important aspects of TB (those that define the order of attack, and which influence planning out movement and actions according to the way the overall sequence is played out) are irrelevant.
>Hmm, i specially enjoy that part. Let's see what's next.
Human Shield said:
What is the whole purpose of fast-paced? That things change quickly?
Actually fast-paced is about acting, moving, or accomplishing something in relatively little time. Hence why i pointed out RT simulates fast-paced quite well, given its in real time and all. I wouldn't point to TB being a good simulation of fast-paced combat given it's an abstraction which exchanges fast-paced combat with careful planning of each move.
In turn-based the enemy has multiple shots on a stationary target. In real-time the target is always moving and each shot must be reloaded, the player would run to cover after the first shot (not the 4th on turn-based).
I think that, if the same situation would arise, despite the fact in RT we'd run back for cover, that shouldn't cause much of a change. In TB a character would move out of cover and would remain there, unable to phisically dodge arrows. But his high Dex, for instance, would make him dodge most of them, even if stationary; in RT, we'd quite likely dodge most of them via player input. I'm not saying this would always happen (in fact this argument can be brought down by bringing into the example a character with low Dex, and as such, unable to dodge most of them :D ), what i'm saying though, is that in the system i'm indicating, this might not be much of a factor, as both player skill and character skill would work with each other. No it wouldn't be the same, then again i'm not exactly wanting it to be the same.
I am talking about a surprise attack. A single enemy can hit you in the back with several arrows on his turn (using any bonus modifiers for each shot).
Quite likely, one of the few things i dislike in the abstraction of combat which is TB.
I stated that TB is more forgiving in general and that RT is a poor simulation. A lot of my post seems to have passed by.
Actually i was commenting on the aspect of you pointing out that in TB you'd get hit with more arrows, but RT was more forgiving in the sense you could get hit with one, and you could run back (thus avoiding the majority). That was the more forgiving part i was refering to; i quite "caught" the post, thank you.
Not possible. Unless you put a realistic damage system on real-time mode which makes it less forgiving then Turn-based, and most likely harder to control.
Possibly.
>Right back at you.
Vault Dweller said:
STR and INT are very different so it's hard to compare them objectively.
Would it? Fallout had a statistical skill chart from 1 to 10, and the higher the number, the better a character would be at that given stat. A 1 is as low as one can get. While strength and intelligence are pretty different, the value of 1 indicates that both would be at the bottom of stat chart, indicating an almost complete inability to use the skill effectively. In the case of STR, it more than likely the character is extremely weak, to the point of suffering from some disease; in INT that value would translate quite likely to being retarded.
>Doesn't that beat all?
Otaku_Hanzo said:
It just means they are not academically able to take on certain challenges. They could still easily find their way to the local grocery store and possibly buy something.
Or easilly finding their way to be bought and sold as slaves to Vault City :shock:
