Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
18,728
Pathfinder: Wrath
The map looked quite good actually, there's no more of that middling-budget plastic 3D going on. The character models are horrendous, but that's probably unavoidable because modern 3D. And this offering is the opposite of insulting, I wouldn't be half as excited if they were to do a RTwP game. But we've been over this, the RTwP fetishists lost.
 

NJClaw

OoOoOoOoOoh
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7,587
Location
Pronouns: rusts/rusty
Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
The map looked quite good actually, there's no more of that middling-budget plastic 3D going on. The character models are horrendous, but that's probably unavoidable because modern 3D. And this offering is the opposite of insulting, I wouldn't be half as excited if they were to do a RTwP game. But we've been over this, the RTwP fetishists lost.
Sooner or later we will understand the truth about this entire affair: we all lost.
 
Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
19,398
The map looked quite good actually, there's no more of that middling-budget plastic 3D going on. The character models are horrendous, but that's probably unavoidable because modern 3D. And this offering is the opposite of insulting, I wouldn't be half as excited if they were to do a RTwP game. But we've been over this, the RTwP fetishists lost.
Sooner or later we will understand the truth about this entire affair: we all lost.
We won a great opportunity for shitposting though. :M
 

NJClaw

OoOoOoOoOoh
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7,587
Location
Pronouns: rusts/rusty
Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture
Haven't heard a squeak from them after the fans quite literally booed them off stage.
What. Everyone in the room was autistically excited about bow-dipping, boot-throwing and vampire-gaying.
Pretty sure he's joking. Either that or he's delusional.
Yeah... I was just hoping he was referring to something I missed. Nothing wrong with being delusional, though: you need to go on somehow
 

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
It's the same as to say painting only existed because of technical limitations, and now as we have photos we don't need it. It''s totally wrong.

If I could go back in time, I would prevent Darklands's developers from ever creating this monstrosity. The cRPG world would be a better place.
 

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
The first video game ever was real time.

This reminds me of Vince's classical interview on Rock Paper and Shotgun.

Vince: Have you played Silent Storm? Temple of Elemental Evil? Both games featured excellent turn-based combat and great graphics. Detailed 3D models and animations didn’t create any “odd” feelings but made gameplay more enjoyable, as one would expect.

Your comment implies that you’re looking at TB from the “it doesn’t look real” point of view and that’s where you’re mistaken. RPG combat systems, turn-based or real-time, is no more realistic than hit points (do you really think that someone could recover from a two-handed axe blow and continue fighting like nothing happened?), carrying enough junk to fill a warehouse, spells memorization, rechargeable mana, etc. Frozen in time characters patiently taking blows and waiting for their turns are no more odd or weird than RT’s single characters fighting thousands of enemies and destroying entire armies. These mechanics aren’t about realism, they are about fun.

Now, fun is a very subjective concept. Some people think that playing chess is fun. Some people think that playing in traffic is fun. Go figure. So, if tactical chess-like combat filled with “what happens if I do A vs what happens if I do B vs. …” decisions sounds like fun to you, then you won’t find TB odd or slow. If you prefer non-stop, mindless by definition, action requiring nothing but manual dexterity and fast reaction, then RT is your friend.

Most people see turns as a some kind of relic from the days long gone, a throwback to the old days when electricity wasn’t invented yet and computers were powered by candle light. Some morons even compare turns to a pause, but we shall blame the education system for that.

The main difference between turns and pauses, so brilliantly illustrated by XCOM, is that when your turn is over, someone else’s turn starts, and if you didn’t prepare for that, well, mostly likely you are dead and it’s “game over” for you. In RT it’s perfectly acceptable to run toward a door, open it, hit pause, review the situation, pick targets and start kicking ass in an unbelievable but visually pleasing fashion. In XCOM if you open a door when your turn ends, and a hostile character is in the room, you are dead. What you may see as a flaw is actually a quick test of your tactics employed during your turn. If you fail, your character dies. You need to carefully plan your actions and then you’ll have a chance to beat games like XCOM or Jagged Alliance. Only a chance. I played XCOM for 6 months on my first playthrough. I beat Heavenly Sword in a few days. It’s an amazing looking game, but it doesn’t require much brainpower. If you can hold a controller, you can play and beat the game. See the difference?

When you have time, Kieron, how about writing an article explaining the difference between RPGs and shooters to your audience? Or maybe an article mentioning that the first computer games were real-time, not turn-based, and disputing the popular opinion that RT is more advanced than TB? I mean, it’s nice that your site tries to attract morons and makes them feel at home, but shouldn’t you be educating them too? It wouldn’t take much to double their IQs, so if you want, I can give you a hand there.

Other memorable parts:

Vince: Let me ask you one of them rhetorical questions. Is turn-based for everyone? No. Will chess appeal to anyone? No. Casual players prefer to load a game, hit a few buttons and watch their characters kick some ass. They don’t want to play games like XCOM where a single mission can easily take a few hours. Yes, a few hours to kill 20 aliens. Should we be really surprised that in an age of weapons with DPS stats – that’s damage per SECOND – and avg expected kills of 10-15 monsters per minute, spending 2 hours to kill twenty aliens doesn’t sound like fun to some people?

As for the comments in that “let’s laugh at turn-based combat together” article, look at what some guy named Kieron said – “I was fine with the turn-based combat, in terms of it being an indie-game and all…”. See, he was fine with TB combat because it’s an indie game, but if it wasn’t an indie game he probably would have written an angry letter to his congressman or maybe even shot someone. Imagine that.

And yes, I understood what you were chasing after, but I guess I failed to explain my point properly. Let me try again using the most important discovery and technological breakthrough of the century – bullet time. Remember Matrix? The first scene, where that cop points the gun at Trinity and says “English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?”, and Trinity says “my turn lolz”, slowly jumps into the air, hangs there for a few seconds, while the cop blinks, and then kicks him? Tell me with a straight face that when that happened you didn’t stare at the screen with an open mouth but said “I call bullshit! That shit is clearly turn-based and it just done ruined my suspension of disbelief!” Tell me that, and being a gentleman, I’ll admit that you have a point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
An argument for turn based - The Magnificent Seven argument
Saint_Proverbius
Oct 30, 2002
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.p...urn-based-the-magnificent-seven-argument.192/

Basically, this is a non-standard argument for turn based combat in CRPGs based on a movie, The Magnificent Seven.

Okay, the set up is there are scenes at the beginning of the movie that demonstrates why the Magnificent Seven are, in fact, "magnificent". One of them is a scene featuring a guy who specializes in throwing knives as his combat forte. He is challenged by a gunslinger as to whether or not he's faster with his knife throwing than the gunslinger is. They do a mock run at an actual duel and the gunslinger claims victory. The people looking on say they couldn't tell who won or who lost. When the gunslinger asks the knife guy to tell them who won, the knife guy says, "You lost."

So, the gunslinger gets angry, and tells the knife guy he wants to prove it by them dueling for real. When the gunslinger keeps on insisting, the knife fighter eventually stands up, and they duel again, standing about 20 to 30 feet apart. Long story short, as the gunslinger is drawing, he gets a knife hitting him and killing him.

The knife thrower was much faster than the gunslinger, capable of not only beating the gunslinger's weapon draw, but also having the knife travel accurately through the air in time to kill the gunslinger before he fired.

Turn based can do this situation flawlessly. Most turn based systems have a combat system based on how fast a character can act based on their agilty, or other attribute(s), the characters in combat are. Avernum does it. Geneforge does it. SPECIAL does it. I'm pretty sure GURPS does this as well. Because the knife thrower was more agile than the gunslinger, he won the fight. His "turn" came up first.

Now, consider this situation in real time. In real time, you have to deal with actions and animations also going on at the same time. You have three animation sequences for this fight. The knife flying through the air, the knife thrower drawing and throwing the knife, and the gun slinger drawing his weapon. Each of these animations will have a certain fixed frame count per second.

For most 2D games, the animation frames for the sprites is 15 frames per second. 3D games are pretty much the same, only they can blend the model movements with the frame rate, making the animations a litte more smoothly. Because of this, in real time, you'd have to set up a delay calculation for the gunslingers just to get the knife in the air for it to complete the animations of the drawing just before it fires the gun.

That's basically the problem here. You'd pretty much have to script this to work right, and it'd only work for that one event. You'd have a consistancy issue throughout the game. If you made it so the knife thrower was always that much faster, you'd end up with several balance issue problems as well as a problem with the timing of actions per "round".

You have to deal with the time it takes for the knife thrower to go through his draw and throw animations, and the animation of the knife travelling through the air. If it takes ten frames of animation for the draw and throw, you have to delay every gunslinger that he's faster than for 7/10s of a second, and possibly delay them even more depending on the travel time for the knife. That may not sound like much, but that's a fairly long time to delay actions in real time. Depending on the round length, or when time "recycles", this would result in long gaps between the next cycle or you'd have overlapping cycles, just to compensate for this effect.

Also, depending on whether this is a bonus or penalty of lag time due to an attribute like agility, you run the risk of having a narrow attribute system just so the round time isn't too long. It's it's a bonus or penalty of .7 seconds per agility point, and you have a attribute range of 1-20, you're talking a round cycle time of 14 seconds in real time, which would make it grossly slower than turn based.

So, basically, that's an advantage to turn based right there. It can allow a specialist character to actually be magnificent in his area of specialty, which wouldn't be possible in real time without a hell of a lot of fudging.

EDIT: Black, oldie but goldie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
The argument for TB is that it is cheap,easy to make and balance and generally more accessible(AKA dumbed down).
Anyone who thinks that RTwP diarrhea can be balanced even in principle is not right in the head.

RTwP is a sign of the times. People have such a short attention span that they can't think tactically anymore. Ergo, a tactical combat system must play itself super-fast like in an action movie.

There is no despise enough in the world for cRPG players who indulge in this mistake just out of respect for the BG series, which was already a dumb down and decline game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
The dispute is not RT vs TB, they are both valid. It's RTwP vs TB, which is bananas, there is no possible timeline in which RTwP is better or even viable.
RTwP is real time that sucks.

RTwP is real time that sucks. The pause is an honest admission that fast-paced, party vs party, real-time combat is too chaotic to be controlled on the fly and that AI is too retarded to be relied on, and thus you have to pause this interactive movie to issue some basic orders and show AI how it's done.

Sequential combat is a lot more complex and a turn, yours or the enemy's, isn't a pause - it's a window to plan, respond to what the enemy's up to, execute strategies, and most importantly, ensure that your party members will survive the enemy's turn. In fact, planning for the enemy's turn is what makes TB so interesting. Any idiot can pick some targets to attack during his turn, but making sure that all your men survive the enemy's turns turn and the battle (like in XCOM, for example) is the real challenge.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted Member 22431

Guest
With RTwP, and given a functional AI (but not a competent one), the game input needed from the player is: watch the overall proceedings of the battle and periodically adjust the decisions of the AI to more competent ones. That makes the critical moments of the battle - the moments that decide whether or not you will succeed - first and foremost based on whether you twitched at the right time. If you do, then you get to properly adjust the party tactics, which moves you towards success.

Effectively, RTwP posits that every character in the game is stupid (no matter the character's statted Intelligence), and they remain so until they are touched by the inspiring hand of the gamer-god. After that brief moment of inspiration, though, the characters immediately go back to being stupid.

In turn-based, every character is only as stupid as the gamer chooses to make them, since all of a character's abilities are available to you at all times, during both unimportant rounds and critical ones, whether or not you are good at twitching. Which of the game types a person likes better is then generally based on how twitchy they are.

So, turn-based is purely about the gamer's mind. While RTwP is about the gamer's mind, his twitchability, and how much of the gameplay the developers choose to have handled by the AI (instead of having the gamer, you know, actually play it).

And so it will remain, since the RTwP AI can't be advanced too much more than it already is without the AI taking over the gameplay completely.
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,552
Location
Bulgaria
Anyone who thinks that RTwP diarrhea can be balanced even in principle is not right in the head.
Ahhh that is my point lol,balance is the killer of fun. It is thing that lets old people and journos to finish the first level. If i see a fucking dragon,i want to be able to go and get my ass handled 100 times and kill the bastard on my 101 time! Stop boggling us down with your lack of skills mate. :smug:
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
18,728
Pathfinder: Wrath
If i see a fucking dragon,i want to be able to go and get my ass handled 100 times and kill the bastard on my 101 time!
I don't know how to react to this. It's blowing my mind. It's a combination of you being unaware of what balance is trying to achieve and what the argument against balance is. Balance is making sure the playable characters aren't overpowered compared to the NPCs. Which is what you are arguing for and the anti-balance people are arguing against.

What a time to be alive.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom