Game News Forlorn World announced

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.

 

[Shagnak]

Because of all this, and when compared to other videogames using phase-based, it's an exception to the rule but not a strong enough exception to redefine how it works.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree then, because we're just going to go in circles

I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.

I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.

I maintain that if I were to make a game wherein the player chose the characters' actions at those points where the character can act in a round (i.e. one of their active phases), rather than all at the beginning of the round, then this is still phase based.
What else would you call it?**

Trying to redefine it based on this exception would be like calling Temple of Elemental Evil a Pseudo Turn-Based game because of concurrent turns.

Err, no it wouldn't.

In fact, this analogy is much closer to what you are doing.
Namely, calling <phase-based game with player decisions made at phase stops> a <something other than "phase based"> due to decisions being made at phase stops.

If you're going to exclude something being phase-based based on this, then you might as well be excluding TOEE from being TB due to the "exception"* of concurrent turns.

But, as we agree, that would be silly.

Anyway, we disagree.
But at least we know EXACTLY where we stand. Which in itself I am happy about, because so many arguments/discussions go on and on and on due to people not even really getting to grips with that

[*Disclaimer: I lack knowledge about TOEE, so have no idea about the veracity of this, and haven't thought very deeply about whether it really is uncommon]

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Trinity was set in Poland during a nuclear winter, while Polish Wasteland was initially a Fallout 2 mod, and later an entirely new game,

So one game and a mod which became a game have both become another game? Right. This has disaster written all over it.

 

[Elwro]

Right. This has disaster written all over it.

Shsh, don't say that :wink: .

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.

Not an exception at all? Fine. Then please tell me how many phase-based games provide the same kind of movement option that Wizardry 8 does as opposed to those which don't.

I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.

When the player chooses the action is as important to defining phase-based as when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. Otherwise, there'd be less ways of determing the differences between phase and turn-based. Or even between phase-based, turn-based and realtime with pause.

I maintain that if I were to make a game wherein the player chose the characters' actions at those points where the character can act in a round (i.e. one of their active phases), rather than all at the beginning of the round, then this is still phase based.
What else would you call it?

What would you call a combat system where character turns are executed by the player's hand troughout an active phase, rather than all of them at the beginning? If I was to go by your belief that when the player decides the actions has no bearing on the system, then it would pretty much be akin to turn-based.

In fact, this analogy is much closer to what you are doing.
Namely, calling <phase-based game with player decisions made at phase stops> a <something other than "phase based"> due to decisions being made at phase stops.

I find it hard that said analogy is closer to what I am doing considering that I've named two games as being phase-based while this option for movement is only present in one. What I am doing is not trying to establish that because of its option for movement Wizardry 8 is not phase-based; rather, than this option for movement is an exception that does not undo or redefine the general description of the system.

If you're going to exclude something being phase-based based on this, then you might as well be excluding TOEE from being TB due to the "exception"* of concurrent turns.

Read above. Again, I am not excluding something being phase-based based on a single instance of the possibility of movement; I am questioning - and possibly excluding - said instance of movement as redefining of the system's description because said instance of movement is optional, has no need to be player input-driven during a phase, and is fairly rare when numbered against other phase-based games. To put this in your analogy's perspective, I wouldn't exclude ToEE of being turn-based because it featured concurrent turns, but would question if concurrent turns had any significance when it came to define turn-based.

 

[Shagnak]

See, told you we would go in circles

Mainly because we don't even agree what "phase-based" is, so our analogies are going to be very much "point of view" and therefore pointless.
So I won't reply to every point, as it just belabours the fact that we are talking about something rather different and we'll never find agreement on each point due to this.

And the reason for this is that our respective concept of what "phase based" is referring to is fundamentally different for us.
I'm getting closer to knowing what you think it means (yaaay :D), due to this:

What would you call a combat system where character turns are executed by the player's hand troughout an active phase, rather than all of them at the beginning? If I was to go by your belief that when the player decides the actions has no bearing on the system, then it would pretty much be akin to turn-based.

So would I be right in thinking that your definition of "phase-based" is entirely based on:

The player (and computer?) decides all actions at the beginning, and then they are acted out in phase order

and this is to separate it from "turn based" which is:

As each player has its turn they decide their action

So your definition is entirely about when the player makes decisions, right?

Whereas I am thinking about phase-based being fully defined in terms of "round structure" or similar. As in it doesnt matter when the decisions are made, but when they occur:

The player/party has his actions at different points throughout the round, based on what phases he is allowed to act in

And turn based being defined by:

All player actions done consecutively during their turn, without interruption

So, under that, we would both call Wiz 8 phase-based (if including the "exception"), both call Civilisation turn-based, but would disagree with games like FFX.

So it makes sense why some of what you would consider to be TB is PB to me, and some of what you consider to be PB is TB to me.
Now that we have that out of the way, I am willing to accept that my definition may be quite wrong according to Codex standards - looking around (just now) I see that others such as SolInvictus and Sarvis appear to agree with your definition.

However, my definition is shared by quite a few people I know. And even some from here, going by some threads that I wisely made a point of not getting involved in.

I guess we're not RPG-elite

 

[aboyd]

Anyway, the moral of the story is, NWN/BG do not have turn based combat, and neither do they have "good" combat.

Saying "not turn based" is probably something objective. We can discuss it and come to a conclusion, based upon some agreed-upon standards. Saying they do not have "good combat" is subjective. In my case, I fully agree that NWN was not good combat, but I fully disagree about BG, which I enjoyed so much I long for more games like it.

I think people dislike Fallout combat because of how it could drag due to having too many people involved in the combat and how in many cases many of those would not even be in combat (like the Jet junkies that had a lot of action points but moved so slow).

Yes, that's why I disliked it, or at least that's close. It was combat dragging, coupled with repetitious actions. It got a little mind-numbing. If just a few things had been streamlined, and I mean pretty minor changes, that game would have been like oxygen to me.

I could explain further but I think it is best that I don't so some pointless argument can begin that really results from a combination of things, i.e. (a) people not knowing what they're talking about; (b) people not explaining very well what they mean; (c) people not having the facility to understand what people mean; (d) people misunderstanding what other people mean, through either (b) or (c); (e) people deliberately misconstruing what people mean so that they can score cheap points.

Yes, well the discussion certainly got more technical and proficient over the last few hours. I couldn't have pulled up old quotes about the nuances of the BG implementation, as Role-Player did.

For me, whatever word is ultimately attached to BG2, that was about the height of gameplay (so long as the auto-pauses were enabled). NWN was unenjoyable, so even just that level of difference in the implementation can send it awry. Lionheart, terrible. Arcanum, so-so -- but I had the most bizarre method of combat, where I'd switch in & out of the action-points interface. I remember liking the combat in Myth, as well. But I have no memory of how combat worked in that anymore.

-Tony

 

[Shagnak]

And to futher cement my defeat:

Turn-Based: Delay = On, Pause = Off. After every creature's turn, there is an unlimited time to make a decision on the next course of action.

Phase-Based: Delay = Off, Pause = On. *All* creatures complete their turn in sequence then the game pauses. You give commands to all creatures in your control. Then all creatures take a turn again in sequence.

(from CrossCut games)

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

See, told you we would go in circles

We're vultures and the definitions are just food, I guess.

So your definition is entirely about when the player makes decisions, right?

When the player chooses the action is as important to defining phase-based as when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions.

I think what I wrote pretty much sums it up. When the player is required to issue orders is an important element which helps define the combat system we're talking about. As an example, if we're talking of traditional turn-based we know that sequence, initative and turns are important, but we could say the same of phase-based. On the other hand, if we determine just when the player chooses the actions on both systems, then we're defining both systems more clearly. Add to that how the turns are executed and you've pretty much established enough differences between both systems to realize how they work. Or at least what makes them different.

However, my definition is shared by quite a few people I know. And even some from here, going by some threads that I wisely made a point of not getting involved in.

I guess we're not RPG-elite

I think Section8's editorial on combat systems pretty much nails it down in terms of how each system works. Also if it's any consolation I understand where you're coming from, though I don't agree with all of it (as demonstrated in this thread).

 

[Shagnak]

I think Section8's editorial on combat systems pretty much nails it down in terms of how each system works.

Yeah, just looking at it now. I missed the url posted above, initially.

Also if it's any consolation I understand where you're coming from, though I don't agree with all of it (as demonstrated in this thread).

That's okay, I'm used to looking like a dumbass.

I wonder if the fact that most of the people I know who use the same sort of definition I did are avid board-gamers and PnP roleplayers has anything to do with it

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.

I highly recommend a killing spree. No mercy. Fuck 'em all.

 

[Human Shield]

I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.

I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.

Characters are allowed to move freely and cancel orders at anytime.

You can't move freely and have phasebased. Movement has to be set into different phases.

BG2 is just real-time with rules. Don't be stupid.

 

[Shagnak]

I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.

I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.

Characters are allowed to move freely and cancel orders at anytime.

You can't move freely and have phasebased. Movement has to be set into different phases.

Wut.
My eroneous interpretation of the facts has already been corrected.
Read the whole thread.
I'm not certain what you're on about.

BG2 is just real-time with rules. Don't be stupid.

Wut.
Why does this appear to be addressed to me?
(Ill assume it isn't)

 

[geminito]

Bioware doesn't even claim BG is turn-based.

Chess is turn-based. The two players take turns. They don't each make a move at the same time and then pause to decide their next moves.

BG is a system where you give orders and let them all happen simultaneously.

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.

I highly recommend a killing spree. No mercy. Fuck 'em all.

Best post evar! I wonder if I can fit that motherfucker into my signature...

 

[Crnobog]

Why hello there yet another polish post-nuclear vaporware

 

[Balor]

I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.

Do you understand that it puts in the same line with people who claim 'This game is turnbased, so it sucks and I will never play it'?

Since when Fallout became a great game simply because it was turnbased, not because of plot, ability to roleplay and general quality? Perhaps POR2 is a masterpiece (well, masterpiece of SHIT it is) too?

May I call you a combat whore? I think I'll call you anyway.

If this system is like SPM in E5, it would be no worse then TB, that's for sure... I'm not even talking about game’s other qualities.
At least, for most purposes, up to and including simulation of real combat the best possible way.

P.S.
Oh, you don't need to remind me that 'TB is TEH PURE FUNZOR!".
I know. It is. So is SPM. And even RT - you just need to know that task it must accomplish.

I find it amusing that RPG "Fuck mainstream" Codex sniffs upon projects that not mainstream by definition.
I mean, games that gave a goal to have as much realism as it's possible, for instance.

And SPM (that sounds exactly like mentioned above 'realistic active pause') is best suited for realistic simulation of combat, allowing you to as much tactical options as you wish, while maintaining a good degree of control over the battlefield (even perfect, even you are willing to pay the price in a few extra pauses).

Don't like it? Fine. But one thing if you don't like something because it's stupid, and completely another if you just don't need it/get it.

Stupidity deserves punishment, that's for sure.
But does diversity deserve it?

 

[bryce777]

Sometimes I wonder if everyone on the planet suffers some serious mental disorder.

No wonder no one can agree what a roleplaying game is and defines them so fucking iridiculously when no one can even fucking agree what a turnbased game is!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.

Do you understand that it puts in the same line with people who claim 'This game is turnbased, so it sucks and I will never play it'?

Since when Fallout became a great game simply because it was turnbased, not because of plot, ability to roleplay and general quality? Perhaps POR2 is a masterpiece (well, masterpiece of SHIT it is) too?

May I call you a combat whore? I think I'll call you anyway.

If this system is like SPM in E5, it would be no worse then TB, that's for sure... I'm not even talking about game’s other qualities.
At least, for most purposes, up to and including simulation of real combat the best possible way.

P.S.
Oh, you don't need to remind me that 'TB is TEH PURE FUNZOR!".
I know. It is. So is SPM. And even RT - you just need to know that task it must accomplish.

I find it amusing that RPG "Fuck mainstream" Codex sniffs upon projects that not mainstream by definition.
I mean, games that gave a goal to have as much realism as it's possible, for instance.

And SPM (that sounds exactly like mentioned above 'realistic active pause') is best suited for realistic simulation of combat, allowing you to as much tactical options as you wish, while maintaining a good degree of control over the battlefield (even perfect, even you are willing to pay the price in a few extra pauses).

Don't like it? Fine. But one thing if you don't like something because it's stupid, and completely another if you just don't need it/get it.

Stupidity deserves punishment, that's for sure.
But does diversity deserve it?

Wut.

 

[Balor]

Unfortunately, it must be some kind of reference I have no knowledge about.
So you might as well have posted an other goatse picture - it'll make as much sense.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Oh, you don't need to remind me that 'TB is TEH PURE FUNZOR!".
I know. It is. So is SPM. And even RT - you just need to know that task it must accomplish.

True. You know what else is fun? Painkiller or Far Cry. Sadly, neither is an RPG. So, I'm sure that RT is da bomb and loads of fun, but it sucks in an RPG. Yeah, yeah, I know, I still haven't tried that PMS system that you are raving about, but I will one day.

I find it amusing that RPG "Fuck mainstream" Codex sniffs upon projects that not mainstream by definition.

What definition is that? Fate, for example, is an indie game, but it's as mainstream as it gets.

I mean, games that gave a goal to have as much realism as it's possible, for instance.

Who gives a shit? Should we applaud and welcome such a game just it because it tries to be different for the sake of being different? Realism in an RPG sucks ass. Gameplay in an RPG revolves around concepts: concept that your character can go from a noob to an all powerful hero in one adventure, concept of hit points, concept of carrying a truckload (literally) of things in his pockets, concepts of killing hundreds of bad guys and stopping armies, concepts of arriving in a far away place instantly, etc.

Is chess realistic? No, but it's a fun game.

 

[Balor]

Gameplay in an RPG revolves around concepts: concept that your character can go from a noob to an all powerful hero in one adventure, concept of hit points, concept of carrying a truckload (literally) of things in his pockets, concepts of killing hundreds of bad guys and stopping armies, concepts of arriving in a far away place instantly, etc.

So, RPG is about a knight running around killing things after all? Teh irony.

Is chess realistic? No, but it's a fun game.

Yea, yea, teh funzor, indeed.

But what if I don't care a lot about chess and like realistic games?
And you know that there are a lot of people who like it too? Of course, not as much as those who like Sims and the like, yet...

Anyway, when it comes to RPGs, combat is not really important, and RT or TB or whatever is only for combat, naturally.

Btw, if you'll remember, P:T is rightfully considered one of greatest RPGs of all time. And it's RTWP .

Again, let me repeat:
Don't like it? Fine. Just don't say that it's inferiour because of it. See above about "stupidity vs variety".

And besides - greater realism -> greater immersion.
Chess IMMERSIVE?

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Unfortunately, it must be some kind of reference I have no knowledge about.
So you might as well have posted an other goatse picture - it'll make as much sense.

I didn't know a goatse picture was the equivalent of "what?". Gaping anuses are so much more polysemous than I thought!

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, RPG is about a knight running around killing things after all? Teh irony.

I didn't say that, but nice try.

But what if I don't care a lot about chess and like realistic games?

Try LARP. I'm sure that Kamaz and his bunch of ... "merry men" would be more than happy to keep you company :p lol

Anyway, when it comes to RPGs, combat is not really important, and RT or TB or whatever is only for combat, naturally.

Depends on a game, doesn't it?

Btw, if you'll remember, P:T is rightfully considered one of greatest RPGs of all time. And it's RTWP .

It's also the only game of such caliber.

Don't like it? Fine. Just don't say that it's inferiour because of it. See above about "stupidity vs variety".

And who said that? If I'm not mistaken, Saint's comment was "I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.", which implies "I don't like it". For the record though, combat in every RTwP RPG I played was inferior to that of well done TB games.

And besides - greater realism -> greater immersion.
Chess IMMERSIVE?

Not a chess player, I guess.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

But what if I don't care a lot about chess and like realistic games?

I'm not sure anyone would give a damn. Then again, I'm not sure anyone here gives a damn what everyone else here likes, or manages to have an attention span that enables them to remember it in the future, so.

Again, let me repeat:
Don't like it? Fine. Just don't say that it's inferiour because of it. See above about "stupidity vs variety".

Speaking of stupidity, did you notice that no one in this thread, not even the very simple statement by Ausir which spawned your little tirade, made any claims about 'realistic active pause' being inferior in any way to some other combat system?

And besides - greater realism -> greater immersion.

Subjective.