Interview Age of Decadence - Big in France

[Eldritch]

I personally enjoy Rome Total War more (Dark Omen is still a great game.)

See, you don't compare R:TW with Dark Omen. If you do it means you don't know shit about Dark Omen. One is completely a strategy game while the other has more RPG elements than most of today's games that come out labeled as RPGs. I remember grinding with my Wizard so he could level up and learn new spells/dispel magic better ffs. The scope of the battles are also not comparable to the Total fucking War series.

Also why the hell didn't anyone seem to have read my first large post here under the retarded 4chan poster I tried to explain some of the stuff including how these games played like and what I've really tried to convey in my opinion here.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Long story short, you're full of BULL shit VD and I don't think you've played any of those games and posting a feeble youtube link was a really nice touch. Jesus Crotch Grabbing Christ On A Diamond Studded Pogo Stick.

I played them when they were released, which was 10+ years ago. I would lie if I say that I remember them like it was yesterday. I'll admit that they've failed to leave a memorable impression.

As for the link, does it or does it not represent the gameplay adequately? If not, please explain.

...but TURN-BASED Daggerfall? How the hell would that even work with such a scope and in a game like Daggerfall??? Wizardry 8 is a completely different animal as a torchbearer of a traditional blob like party based rpg like the M&M games but are they really similar and comparable to a design experiment aimed for a sandbox game like Daggerfall? Really?

What does sandbox have to do with any of that? You didn't have to fight huge crowds a-la Wiz 8 in DF, so I don't see what the problem is. Think that targeting screen in FO3, but make it fully turn-based. Etc.

Overall, I like TB. You seemed to be crazy about RT. I'm very happy for you. Are we done?

Edit:

Being Turn-Based was the right choice for a game like TOEE. But the game that was built around it was just wrong. It's what you'd call: Flawed Vision. Or lousy-ass game design.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[kingcomrade]

why dont you all just go eat some cock huh?

 

[elander_]

See, you don't compare R:TW with Dark Omen. If you do it means you don't know shit about Dark Omen. One is completely a strategy game while the other has more RPG elements than most of today's games that come out labeled as RPGs.

I wasn't comparing them for the role-playing. You are confusing my posts. The comparison is about unit count and controlling groups instead of elements. An individual can be killed with one close hit in XCom or JA2. The entire team can be killed or controlled if they are careless. The gameplay is very different. Besides in Dark Omen you control more than the usual 8-12 elements per team you see in party games. If I remember correctly JA2 had 8 max and XCom had 12 max, which is the most i have seen in these kind of games.

Also why the hell didn't anyone seem to have read my first large post here under the retarded 4chan poster I tried to explain some of the stuff including how these games played like and what I've really tried to convey in my opinion here.

What's your point exactly? That real-time strategy games can be interesting games and strategic? That each system is different and requires it's own balance. Nobody is arguing against that. My point is that using RTwP with XCom doesn't add anything to the game that players who enjoy only the pure strategic side of a game would enjoy.

 

[Eldritch]

Long story short, you're full of BULL shit VD and I don't think you've played any of those games and posting a feeble youtube link was a really nice touch. Jesus Crotch Grabbing Christ On A Diamond Studded Pogo Stick.

I played them when they were released, which was 10+ years ago. I would lie if I say that I remember them like it was yesterday. I'll admit that they've failed to leave a memorable impression.

As for the link, does it or does it not represent the gameplay adequately? If not, please explain.

Well, the video doesn't seem enough to display every single element of SoTHR and I'll also admit I've played that one years ago but played Dark Omen quite recently and even set up multiplayer matches with a friend of mine sometimes. What I'm saying there is, most of the elements you've listed there for X-Com is actually represent in Dark Omen with even its own extra here and there. It's at least as much "RPG" as X-Com is. Also as much tactically challenging as X-Com, but in a different way. I like em' both and if you bring X-Com to the table for the blessings of the TB there's absolutely nothing stopping Dark Omen to also champion RT. Even the scale of DO isn't as huge as it seems, you don't control more than 12 units even in the latest missions. The regiments are just like individual "characters" with their own HP, experience, abilities and everything. RT can work even on a small scale game with a deep tactical challenge if you design your game around it well.

...but TURN-BASED Daggerfall? How the hell would that even work with such a scope and in a game like Daggerfall??? Wizardry 8 is a completely different animal as a torchbearer of a traditional blob like party based rpg like the M&M games but are they really similar and comparable to a design experiment aimed for a sandbox game like Daggerfall? Really?

What does sandbox have to do with any of that? You didn't have to fight huge crowds a-la Wiz 8 in DF, so I don't see what the problem is. Think that targeting screen in FO3, but make it fully turn-based. Etc.

Overall, I like TB. You seemed to be crazy about RT. I'm very happy for you. Are we done?

No, I'm not particularly crazy about RT but I'm not particularly crazy about TB either. I'm just crazy about good games. Good design. I like good design, good games not some fucking genre by itself. We had a thread here about "How would you have designed the next TES game after DF" and nobody demanded "Turn-Based, top-down, isometric etc" for the game to be good. Well, maybe except for kingcomrade with the "Turn-Based/isometric/Space Marines" suggestion. Daggerfall really appears to be an underengineered prototype for an amazing game no one has made. But the goddamn dungeons with their quantity seems just okay except for a few good ones. A Daggerfall with emergent politics, crime, demographics, personalities, "lore" was what it really needed to have achieved nirvana. Combat is a bitinconsequential. Breezing through a lot of dungeons incorporating a fluid RT climbing, swimming, levitation seems just right for that game. Even though Wizardry 8 had much more few and intricately designed levels compared to DF most of the encounters were really insufferable before they made that WizFast utility. The enemies might be few but the world is huge, the dungeons are huge, and the scope is huge in DF. And it's not that possible to hand-craft too many decent encounters that would exploit the advantages of TB like you can in a Wizardry game. Different games, different pacing, different everything. "Few enemies" alone doesn't cut it. A game like DF is incompatible for a tactical turn-based combat intended for a party based game like Wiz8. It has no business trying to incorporate such a thing, as I said, it needed other stuff to complete the underengineered prototype for the amazing game no one has made before that would be an RPG that offered a totally different gaming experience. A better RT system, yeah. But Turn-Based???

Being Turn-Based was the right choice for a game like TOEE. But the game that was built around it was just wrong. It's what you'd call: Flawed Vision. Or lousy-ass game design.

What does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with what I've been trying to say. The tedious, numerous and boring encounters every few steps that weren't really challenging seems to be the worst design one could come up with such a tactical TB system. I'm not crazy about those goddamn Bugbears not the game being TB. Wouldn't a small scale tactical TB RPG like TOEE been much better with fewer, more challenging, more intelligently designed levels and encounters? The game is like a tranny claiming to be trapped in a man's body, and actually telling the truth. Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, the good ones of the Infinity E. series have a much more simplistic RTwP system than it could have but the game designed around it is not only fun/challenging/tactical, the way they pulled off a fast paced and fluid gameplay with a well designed, huge scope made even intelligent people with refined tastes like Edward_R_Murrow like the game. A turn based Icewind Dale would have been a completely different game but it would have only been "good" if it weren't Icewind Dale anymore. Different kinds of gaming experiences can very well employ a different system well and has the potential to offer something different to the gene pool if it has been made RIGHT. If AoD has similar boring filler challenges that is a drag to go through with TB I won't like it. If it has relatively few but excellently placed and designed challenging combat that takes full advantage of TB, and if the games scope and the way you think it should play like fits perfectly with what you've got to offer, I will like it. The same goes for the Scars of War. Two different games that promise two different experiences but their combat genre alone will never be their saving grace. There is no RIGHT choice. And this whole "RT is wrong for every single design for an RPG game conceivable and should not exist" idea seems just wrong on so many levels. It seems like baseless Zealotry to me. You don't have a dominion over all things R.P.G.

 

[Eldritch]

I wasn't comparing them for the role-playing. You are confusing my posts. The comparison is about unit count and controlling groups instead of elements. An individual can be killed with one close hit in XCom or JA2. The entire team can be killed or controlled if they are careless. The gameplay is very different. Besides in Dark Omen you control more than the usual 8-12 elements per team you see in party games. If I remember correctly JA2 had 8 max and XCom had 12 max, which is the most i have seen in these kind of games.

An individual "regiment" can be instantly killed/routed with one goddamn artillery ordinance, spell blast or even a devastating cavalry charge from a vulnerable flank. I experienced situations my entire army, maybe not in the last missions whaere you control a lot of regiments but in some of the tough ones had devastated in mere seconds if I were careless and the disabling spells of enemy Spellcasters are just as devastating as MC Aliens if they aren't dealt with quickly just like in X-Com. I utterly hated those Necromancers/Vampires and Shamans.

You don't really control more than 12 elements in Dark Omen because the regiments are the only goddamn element you have to control. Why do you lie? What if its not precisely 12 but 14 or 15 max? What difference does it make? They're at least comparable in scale.

Those "groups" are but an illusion. Every single regiment is just like a unit by itself with its own HP and stats that gain xp, level up and can equip stuff. So what if they aren't drawn as one guy with individual body parts instead of a couple of dudes?

You are confusing the games.

 

[elander_]

An individual "regiment" can be instantly killed/routed with one goddamn artillery ordinance, spell blast or even a devastating cavalry charge from a vulnerable flank.

OK i give you a point on that. But how do you know the game wouldn't be more enjoyable if you controlled those units using a TB system? Bringing Dark Omen only proves that RT and strategy games can work, not that RT works better than TB for everyone.

What's the advantage from the point of view of someone who doesn't care about real-time battle field decisions and only cares about strategy?

That's why RT wouldn't be a substitute for TB in XCom or JA2. In JA2 with battles having more than 50 enemy npcs all attacking at the same time in different fronts it would be impossible to use RTwP and you still control a team of 8 players characters maximum.

 

[Marquis de Retardot]

 

[Eldritch]

@ elander_

I just edited my post and mentioned the disabling stuff too btw.

The game is really quite small scale and it works as an RT game while maintaining a DIFFERENT flavor of tactical depth.

Dark Omen was not that twitch dependent but it did force you to make quick tactical decisions on the run and the game being RP created a most impressive illusion of a large scale battle by being RT even tho it wasn't large scale at all. The way it made your ass sweat to make quick tactical decisions, the way it scared you was in so much perfect agreement with what the game intended to make you feel in a seemingly hopeless, overwhelming battle it was heavan. A TB Warhammer Fantasy game would have been something else but NOT Dark Omen.

Why can't RPGS that tries to evoke similar experiences not be allowed to live because they're RT? Why can't there be an rpg I can control a lot of mercenary guys and fight huge battles? Why can't I expect Scars of War to employ exciting and challenging battles? Why?

Why should there only be one ultimate way of playing goddamn games?

That's why RT wouldn't be a substitute for TB in XCom or JA2.

Never claimed otherwise and I completely agree with it. Their system was perfect for the kind of game they are and they provided the perfect experience as intended. Can't say the same about ToEE for the reasons I've mentioned in some of my my previous posts. Read my latest response to VD.

 

[Eldritch]

webcomic

I like Blither AND Blather. BlitherBlatherBlitherBlather. But I only like the good Blither and Blather.

 

[St. Toxic]

Again, I dont want that.
I want control, I want to be able to adapt and its very hard to adapt for me under RT without experience/patterns learned in training. More than anything, I want to win an argument.

Well excuuuuuuuuse meeeeee.

His initial statement is obviosly exaggeration / PR speak / troll bait.

Then it's invalid and we are in agreement? Good.

"I like real-time combat. I love shooters, I love RTS, I love Diablo games and am eagerly waiting for Diablo 3. I'm one tasteless son of a bitch."

:surprise:

"I just don’t think that RT adds anything to RPGs or should be there in the first place."

You hear that, Toxic? Adds anything to RPGs. Not strategy or wargames. Not shooters. Not racing games. RPGs.

Then,
1) You bringing up X-com when it supports your arguments is A-OK, but the minute an rt counterpart in the same genre (strategy) is brought up, claiming it's all about "RPG's" - that's horseshit.

2) Does strategic combat eliminate the chance of a game being an RPG? I mean, FOW/MOW does have an inventory system, a direct fire/aim system, promotions and ranks, weapon familiarity and plenty of situations where guerilla combat using 1-5 units is the only applicable solution. Beefing up the character advancement system, adding some dynamic dialogues and a comprehensive story and a world map later we have an RPG using the same exact system of combat. A combat system that would still have to be dumbed down in order for it to be converted to a TB system.

You should keep in mind, that when talking about combat, because that's the core of the argument, it doesn't matter if the game is pure strategy, crpg or adventure game; it doesn't actually change anything.

Other than the pointless worming, it was a pretty good retort.

I also love how it's free game to call forth the X-Com and co. to champion the blessings of TB but it's a no-no to bring up FoW/MoW or Dark Omen/SotHR because they're like... strategy games, man.

XCOM mechanics are very close to these of a tactical RPG: a small squad, combat abilities that increase with use, new unlockable abilities (PSI), training, looting, equipment of your choice, etc.

Again, a small squad, weapon familiarity that increases with use, ranks that allow for character bonuses (run-speed, deployment rate etc), looting, scavenging, equipment of your choice etc. All present in FOW/MOW.

 

[elander_]

Dark Omen was not that twitch dependent but it did force you to make quick tactical decisions on the run and the game being RP created a most impressive illusion of a large scale battle by being RT even tho it wasn't large scale at all. The way it made your ass sweat to make quick tactical decisions, the way it scared you was in so much perfect agreement with what the game intended to make you feel in a seemingly hopeless, overwhelming battle it was heavan. A TB Warhammer Fantasy game would have been something else but NOT Dark Omen.

Why can't RPGS that tries to evoke similar experiences not be allowed to live because they're RT? Why can't there be an rpg I can control a lot of mercenary guys and fight huge battles? Why can't I expect Scars of War to employ exciting and challenging battles? Why?

Of course it could, and i don't disagree it can be very fun. Real-time simulates the heat of a battle and forces you to make quick decisions and plan ahead before the battle begins, but like you said it would be a different experience.

Think about games like XCom or JA2 as board games like chess and others where you have an abstracted system of rules and the fun of the game is to learn how to use those rules and come up with strategies that let you win those games. Chess players don't care if you have 5 seconds or 1 minute to decide your next move. They want to have time to ponder their decisions and if the game is well balance and has a good system of rules then they will need that time to win.

If TB works badly in some games or isn't challenging enough it's like in ToEE, the game should have been balanced in a different way to make it a more thoughtful game, or use a different system. That's the key point here. If a game doesn't need thought to win then a TB system is a waste.

 

[Eldritch]

If TB works badly in some games or isn't challenging enough it's like in ToEE, the game should have been balanced in a different way to make it a more thoughtful game, or use a different system. That's the key point here. If a game doesn't need thought to win then a TB system is a waste.

Yes.

See I completely agree with you. But it SHOULD be allowed to use a different system as you said, if it intends to invoke a different gaming experience and can still be tactical if designed well compatible with its own scope. Not every single RPG design conceivable has to incorporate a slower paced, TB-tactical chess-like combat. Some are cool with that some would be better off with another. The consistency of the designer's vision and the way he executes it is the real key point. I just think the übersturmbahnführer's final solution, ze great cleansing for any combat genre but TB conceivable for RPGs to be considered good RPGs just "weird". RT isn't inherently stupid.

 

[Double Ogre]

AoD sounds more and more pretentious with every passing day.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are still here, Ogre? Weren't you, like, going to leave this site and seek attention elsewhere? Didn't work out?

 

[Double Ogre]

Can't resist.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, the video doesn't seem enough to display every single element of SoTHR and I'll also admit I've played that one years ago but played Dark Omen quite recently and even set up multiplayer matches with a friend of mine sometimes. What I'm saying there is, most of the elements you've listed there for X-Com is actually represent in Dark Omen with even its own extra here and there. It's at least as much "RPG" as X-Com is. Also as much tactically challenging as X-Com...

That's what I asked before. Are there RT/RTwP games that are as tactical as XCOM? You say there are and list Dark Omen as an example. Fair enough. I'll play it when I have a chance.

No, I'm not particularly crazy about RT but I'm not particularly crazy about TB either. I'm just crazy about good games. Good design. I like good design, good games not some fucking genre by itself. We had a thread here about "How would you have designed the next TES game after DF" and nobody demanded "Turn-Based, top-down, isometric etc" for the game to be good.

That's all the proof that we need then!

A game like DF is incompatible for a tactical turn-based combat intended for a party based game like Wiz8.

Nobody said it should be party based. Fallout 3 VATS could have easily been turn-based and would have only improved the game's combat.

Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale, the good ones of the Infinity E. series have a much more simplistic RTwP system than it could have but the game designed around it is not only fun/challenging/tactical, the way they pulled off a fast paced and fluid gameplay with a well designed, huge scope made even intelligent people with refined tastes like Edward_R_Murrow like the game.

You should have visited the Codex 4 years ago. You would have been really surprised at how many "intelligent people with refined tastes" disliked BG/IWD and would have never used them as examples of anything other than bad design.

And this whole "RT is wrong for every single design for an RPG game conceivable and should not exist" idea seems just wrong on so many levels. It seems like baseless Zealotry to me. You don't have a dominion over all things R.P.G.

Never claimed I did. Never claimed to be an expert on anything. I've offered my opinion. Naturally, some people agree, some people disagree. Big surprise it's not.

Not every single RPG design conceivable has to incorporate a slower paced, TB-tactical chess-like combat.

It's like saying "not every RPG should have depth, non-linearity, and multiple solutions". I agree, for the record. I'm a big Diablo fan. Can't wait for D3. Day one purchase.

Why can't RPGS that tries to evoke similar experiences not be allowed to live because they're RT? Why can't there be an rpg I can control a lot of mercenary guys and fight huge battles?

Good point. Where are these games? Where is the living proof that RT does NOT suck in non-action RPGs?

Their system was perfect for the kind of game they are and they provided the perfect experience as intended. Can't say the same about ToEE for the reasons I've mentioned in some of my my previous posts.

Well, ToEE was a crappy RPG, but it had a superb TB combat system, which is the only reason why the game hasn't been forgotten yet.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Then,
1) You bringing up X-com when it supports your arguments is A-OK, but the minute an rt counterpart in the same genre (strategy) is brought up, claiming it's all about "RPG's" - that's horseshit.

XCOM had both elements: tactics and strategy. The tactics part could be easily applied to RPGs. In fact, without the strategy aspects, it would have been considered a tactical RPG, the same way Jagged Alliance does. I haven't heard anybody referring to Dark Omen or other strategy games listed in this thread as RPGs. Have you?

2) Does strategic combat eliminate the chance of a game being an RPG?

No idea. Maybe yes, maybe no. I hope it's clear that my opinion is based on the fact that 99% of RT RPG had crappy combat ranging between painful and tolerable. Every great RT game that I liked - Daggerfall, Darklands, Planescape, Mask of the Betrayer, etc, I liked despite the combat, not because of. Never because of.

While TB managed to save some games - ToEE, some Japanese RPGs, etc - I can't say the same about any RT game.

So far, the only defense RT lovers can produce is "well, it's possible in other genres, so surely it should be possible in RPGs". Like I said, maybe, maybe not. Your position would have been a hell of lot stronger if you could provide some actual proof instead of sharing with us your hope that one day an RPG with awesome RT combat will be made.

Again, a small squad, weapon familiarity that increases with use, ranks that allow for character bonuses (run-speed, deployment rate etc), looting, scavenging, equipment of your choice etc. All present in FOW/MOW.

Interesting. Any reason why the Codex doesn't cover it? The way you present it, it doesn't sound different from Jagged Alliance and Silent Storm. Well, thanks for the tip, I'll definitely give it a shot.

 

[pkt-zer0]

XCOM had both elements: tactics and strategy. The tactics part could be easily applied to RPGs. In fact, without the strategy aspects, it would have been considered a tactical RPG, the same way Jagged Alliance does. I haven't heard anybody referring to Dark Omen or other strategy games listed in this thread as RPGs. Have you?

Dark Omen is considered a real-time tactics game, X-COM is considered a turn-based tactics game. If you deem the overarching strategy aspects irrelevant in this case, why would you still consider them incomparable? What is it that makes them so different in your eyes?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I've played Shadow and Dark Omen a long time ago. I barely remember them. Mistakenly or not, these games didn't produce strong "holy shit tactics!" impressions. XCOM did, which is why the game has a permanent space on my hard drive.

Maybe I didn't understand Dark Omen's awesomeness. Maybe the game wasn't very interesting. I simply don't remember. The videos I looked at to refresh my memory don't paint an awe-inspiring picture. GameSpot gave Dark Omen 8.3, but noted the following problems:

"Though at first glance all seems well and good regarding Dark Omen's play mechanics, certain nagging problems creep up over time. These are mainly concerned with the limited functionality of the game's otherwise effective interface and friendly regiment intelligence, or lack thereof. Your friendly regiments do nothing without your express order besides fight for their lives if attacked and turn tail and flee if overwhelmed. You need to be there to turn your troops to face the enemy, order them to charge into battle, and otherwise baby-sit them under every circumstance. Your ranged units, including archers and artillery, will not fire on the enemy unless you tell them to do so. And they will not stop firing unless you order them to stop. This means once your infantry engages an enemy, your cannons and archers will keep on shooting and thus prove at least as fatal to your own forces as to the opponent. This would not be such a problem, but you cannot issue orders to more than one regiment at a time, which makes multiple cease-fire orders very problematic in the heat of battle. Furthermore, Dark Omen plays at just one speed setting; you cannot slow the game down (or speed it up), nor can you pause the action and issue orders without time constraint. While the inability to toggle game speed is certainly a realistic touch, it seems more like a frustrating oversight when weighed against your regiments' inability to use common sense in a dangerous situation. Dark Omen does follow the Warhammer board game's carefully balanced and fine-tuned rules of engagement carefully, but when you're forced to order up to 15 regiments individually and in real time, you'll find that strategy takes a back seat as you whirl about with your mouse in sheer desperation."

Anyway, since I don't remember the game, I can't say whether it's as awesome and tactical as XCOM. If it is, well then, I was wrong and you guys were right. All I can do is play the game and share my impressions with you later.

 

[BethesdaLove]

Why am I being ignored by VD? I wrote a fucking novel rigth there.
I wont buy AoD if you dont answer me!

 

[Jasede]

Maybe you should play them again, VD.

 

[pkt-zer0]

I've played Shadow and Dark Omen a long time ago. I barely remember them. Mistakenly or not, these games didn't produce strong "holy shit tactics!" impressions. XCOM did, which is why the game has a permanent space on my hard drive.

That doesn't have much to do with what I asked. Care to address that as well, namely how X-COM's tactical aspect might be applied to RPGs, whereas Warhammer 1/2's tactical aspects can not?

(Heck, I'm not entirely sure even X-COM's tactical aspect is adaptable to RPGs. I couldn't name a game that did that, and did it well.)

 

[Volourn]

"Are there RT/RTwP games that are as tactical as XCOM?"

Yes.

 

[Jasede]

Heart of Fury mode in IWD 1 is pretty damn tactical - or at least very strategic.