Interview Golden Land 2 is Real Time

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: Burut Creative Team; Golden Land: Cold Heaven

Russian site <a href=http://www.crpg.ru>CRPG.RU</a> has posted an <a href=http://www.crpg.ru/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=1796>interview</a> (in Russian) with <a href=http://www.burut.ru/htmleng/index.php>Golden Land 2</a> developers. If your Russian is kinda rusty, <a href=http://world.altavista.com/>BabelFish</a> will be happy to translate the interview for you.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>CRPG.RU: What changes will undergo combat system? To what extent it will influence three-dimensional cursor (in the plan of the consideration of the difference of heights, shelters and the like.)?</b>
<br>
<br>
Burut CT: This question is located in the stage of development, until it is possible to say only that the fact that in view of the passage to 3d, the change of the combat and magic concept, and also the presence of physical cursor combat will occur in the real time. From the innovations also it is possible to note the presence of different combat styles and combo. </blockquote>
<br>
It's nice to know that Russian developers have finally realized that RT is teh futare!
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks, <b>Alexander</b>
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Ap_Jolly]

More likely they finally realized that real-time means no pesky reviewers complaining about "obsolete turn-based" and lowering the scores for that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Silent Storm, 34 reviews, avg score 82%. Go figure.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

So you're saying that reviewers do NOT lower marks based on whether or not the game is real-time or turn-based? And you present Silent Storm's average reviews as a proof of that? And you do not wish to address the possibility that if Silent Storm were real-time, the average might jump up to, say, 85 or 87%?

Or you want to dispute my claim that developers do real-time because they believe reviewers will penalize them otherwise? And you use Silent Storm's reviews as a proof that Golden Lands developers, just like Silent Storm people, don't care about skewed reviews? Perhaps for you russian developers are a faceless mass of brainless human shells guided by a gigantic hive mind that controls their thoughts and desires, and so whatever reason guided developer A would naturally describe the behavior of developer B?

Either way, come up with a better retort.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So you're saying that reviewers do NOT lower marks based on whether or not the game is real-time or turn-based?

Perhaps, but in comparison, they usually give much lower marks for crappy gameplay. As fas as I know, Golden Land got mixed reaction from Russian sites and players, who criticiized gameplay much more then good ol' TB.

And you present Silent Storm's average reviews as a proof of that? And you do not wish to address the possibility that if Silent Storm were real-time, the average might jump up to, say, 85 or 87%?

Holy Fuck! A 3 or even 5% jump! Are you serious?

Or you want to dispute my claim that developers do real-time because they believe reviewers will penalize them otherwise?

Developers believe all kinda stupid things, they are a superstitious lot. I wonder why they believe that reviewers will not penalize poor gameplay and automatically reward any RT game.

And you use Silent Storm's reviews as a proof that Golden Lands developers, just like Silent Storm people, don't care about skewed reviews?

Where do you come up with this crap? Can't you read? I use it as a proof that TB doesn't automatcally means lower scores, just like RT doesn't automatically means higher scores. It's all in presentation and implementation. I use it as a proof that a pure TB game could be successful, as overall SS did much better then Sacred for example. ToEE suffered from bugs and poor non-combat gameplay, TB combat was its only redeeming quality which was noted by the game sites.

Perhaps for you russian developers are a faceless mass of brainless human shells guided by a gigantic hive mind that controls their thoughts and desires, and so whatever reason guided developer A would naturally describe the behavior of developer B?

Relax, I'm not dissing the Russians. We feel the same way about North American gaming industy as well, it's a common syndrome.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

The only thing that average proves is that reviewers generally liked Silent Storm. It doesn't prove that TB didn't lower the scores any more than it proves that reviewers don't like Bush.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Considering that Silent Storm was one endless TB session, it's safe to say that those who liked Silent Storm, liked TB combat. A lot.
Simple logic: If A likes B, and B=C, then A likes C.

 

[Ap_Jolly]

People are not very logical. If someone liked Silent Storm's combat, it does not mean that he didn't think it would be a LOT better in real-time (you know the type).

 

[EvoG]

People are not very logical. If someone liked Silent Storm's combat, it does not mean that he didn't think it would be a LOT better in real-time (you know the type).

Erm, doesn't matter, still shows that TB is relevant, or else it would've received a lower score. Means that it was presented well and fun to play, as it should be as this whole RT/TB shit is so arbitrary.

Cheers

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Or maybe it would've received a higher score if it was real-time?

 

[ichpokhudezh]

Actually, the interview is about GL 3. GL2 is not real-time, I believe.

 

[Vault Dweller]

People are not very logical. If someone liked Silent Storm's combat, it does not mean that he didn't think it would be a LOT better in real-time (you know the type).....Or maybe it would've received a higher score if it was real-time?

Is this conclusion based on something other then your desire to present what you believe in as a fact? First of all, there are many real time games (Lionheart, IWD2, Harbinger, Sacred) that got poor scores despite being RT. Second, even if SS got even higher score if it was RT, it wouldn't be a dramatic increase. It got 82% avg, which is pretty good. It wouldn't make much difference if it got 87 or even 92%. Third, regarding your weak quoted argument, if someone likes SS combat enough to give it high scores, he would probably give equally high scores to another TB game, assuming that the combat doesn't suck, in which case Russian developers have nothing to worry about.

ichpokhudezh, the original game was called Zlatogor'e (or something). They released Zlato 2 as Golden Land, and working on Zlato 3 (GL2).

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Is this conclusion based on something other then your desire to present what you believe in as a fact?

It's not a fact, but it sounds plausible.

First of all, there are many real time games (Lionheart, IWD2, Harbinger, Sacred) that got poor scores despite being RT.

I never said real-time games get points simply for being RT, so why do you even bring this up?

Second, even if SS got even higher score if it was RT, it wouldn't be a dramatic increase. It got 82% avg, which is pretty good. It wouldn't make much difference if it got 87 or even 92%.

+10% is not a drammatic increase? Are you fucking nuts?! 90% is A-game, 80% is B-game, you know what it means in terms of shell space?

Third, regarding your weak quoted argument, if someone likes SS combat enough to give it high scores, he would probably give equally high scores to another TB game, assuming that the combat doesn't suck, in which case Russian developers have nothing to worry about.

You tell THEM that. In fact, tell that to every developer out there who chooses RT over TB. Better yet, tell that to publishers and their marketing research people.

 

[EvoG]

This is the one thing I always wondered...is it the GAMES that HAD RT that sold well that made marketing go..."hmmm, RT sells real well over TB", or was it truly RT that made those games sell well?

If 20 games have RT, and 50% sell well, and the only TB that came out was bad, but not due to the combat but the game itself, marketing would assume RT is bettAr than TB?

Anyone?

Cheers

 

[Ap_Jolly]

I strongly believe it's only because TB is "penalized" in the reviews who assumed RT to be "the norm". In other words, nowadays you don't see a review go "wow it's RT, so much better than TB!", but every once in a while someone might say "if only it were RT instead of TB, I would've absolutely loved it and had children with it".

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Then why did reviewers claim KotOR was turn based and then give it a 99%?

 

[Ap_Jolly]

Maybe that reviewer despised RT RPGs, I dunno.

 

[taks]

Then why did reviewers claim KotOR was turn based and then give it a 99%?

because a lot of these reviewers are probably similar to the casual gamer and don't know the difference, nor really care. some will find RT too hectic and lacking in any real strategy, while others will find that TB is too complex and progresses too slowly.

i think those of us that post one way or another in here are a minority with very strong opinions on the subject (actually, i'm a flip-flopper on this one for various reasons).

taks

 

[DarkSign]

Babelfish should brush up on its Russian.

 

[EvoG]

What I mean tho, is since 'when' is RT to be considered superior to TB? When did this happen? What was the catalyst? LOTS of Japanese RPG's and Tact Stratg. coming out or release this year have been TB, and successful I might add. Whats up with that?


Cheers

 

[DamnElfGirl]

Because Japanese developers have been around long enough to know that 13-year-old North American game reviewers don't necessarily represent their entire target market. Really, I find it amusing that North American developers think only RT games will give them mass-market success. Did none of them ever play Pokemon?

 

[taks]

i don't think game developers think "only" RT will sell... i think it's just that the recent mainstream releases that have done TB were poor (ala PoR:RoMD) or more like the strategy games (ala JA). the developers do seem to think that RT will probably sell better, but that may be misguided. toee disproves that by doing reasonably well in spite of all of it's flaws... the number one kudos it usually gets is regarding the combat.

taks

 

[Vault Dweller]

Is this conclusion based on something other then your desire to present what you believe in as a fact?

It's not a fact, but it sounds plausible.

What sounds plausible? That TB games get lower scores just because they feature TB combat? Hardly. ToEE got praised a lot for the combat, but got penalized for poor anything else. JA2 is well known and respected classic. PoR2 got trashed for bad implementation and crappy design. Silent Storm was, like I said, well received. UFO: Aftermath didn't do so well despite being RT, neither did XCom Apocalypse. Paradise Cracked's poor scores matched its poor design (TB outside the combat, duh!), and there is a truckload of titles that got butchered despite their very popular RT combat. The moral of the story: there are good games and bad games. Sometimes people can't recognize a good game (Arcanum) or a bad game (NWN), but it doesn't happen because a game has a particular combat mode. As Saint pointed out,Bio successfully pimped KOTOR as TB, and almost everyone mentioned that fact and gave it 90%+ scores.

Besides, you used that argument defending the shift from TB to RT because poor developers have no choice which is bullshit.

I never said real-time games get points simply for being RT, so why do you even bring this up?

If TB games get lower scores, doesn't that mean that RT games get higher scores by default in comparison?

+10% is not a drammatic increase? Are you fucking nuts?! 90% is A-game, 80% is B-game, you know what it means in terms of shell space?

A-game, eh? Wow. I guess that's why Wiz 8 which was rated 91 by GameSpot, 100 by Computer Gaming World, and got tons of 90-100 from many other reputable hype sources got so much fucking shelf space that it basically put Sirtech out of business. Ratings aint everything, there are many other factors.

Maybe that reviewer despised RT RPGs, I dunno.

It wasn't just one reviewer, 80% mentioned that.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Did none of them ever play Pokemon?

Im confused, are you saying playing pokemon is a good thing, or using pokemons tb combat *hah* and mass appeal as an example of popular tb success, but the game is still horrific.

 

[Lasakon]

Did none of them ever play Pokemon?

Im confused, are you saying playing pokemon is a good thing, or using pokemons tb combat *hah* and mass appeal as an example of popular tb success, but the game is still horrific.

It was Turn-Based. I found the game fun, I might add.