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.

Interview Drakensang interview

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,017
Tags: Drakensang

We present you our <a href=http://www.drakensang.com/>Drakensang</a> <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=136>interview</a> with <b>Jan Lechner</b>, Project Lead, and <b>Bernd Beyreuther</b>, Creative Director.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>5. You've also mentioned that you feel that a "purely turn-based system only addresses a minority of today's RPG audience". Even though I agree with you 100%, unfortunately, here is a simple question: why? Do you feel that the era of turn-based RPGs is over and no TB game, no matter how successful it is, can bring it back? Or do you feel that a TB game simply can not be successful these days, at least not the way a Baldur's Gate-like game can?</b>
<br>
<br>
Bernd Beyreuther: That is a good and very interesting question. I don’t think that a round-based RPG can not be a success, quite the opposite, I played “Advance Wars” obsessively for several weeks on my DS not long ago. I do believe that you can still make turn-based games that reach the masses. In fact, we are working on several concepts in this direction, especially with the new portable systems in mind.
<br>
<br>
It is another question, whether an RPG that aims to captivate and entertain – which needs to have cinematic, dramatic, emotional aspects in addition to the rules and combat system – is well served by interruptions. I believe that the intellectual, pondering chess-like style of a TB game does not mix well with atmospheric elements, story and emotion, as it breaks the player’s immersion.</blockquote>
<br>
<a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=136>Read the rest here</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
The player will be able to pause combat at any time, so he is able to analyze the situation and make a decision.

Yeah and break immersion, no way.
 

Roqua

Prospernaut
Dumbfuck Repressed Homosexual In My Safe Space
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4,130
Location
YES!
Great intreview VD, great questions. Whats sad is I think this is the only fancy-graphic rpg that interests me. Of course its a huge let down to me since the RoA series is my hands-down favorite series. It would be so much easier to like these guys and forgive if they were just more forthright with serious answers instead of hype-fluff.

And of course I disagree 100% with a lot of their fluff and "design philosophy." If all consiquences are imediatley apparent, why would I replay the game when all I have to do is save and reload and know exactly how it would of turned out the otherway? Etc. their "round-based" nonsense really gets to me.

I just would have so much less resentment if they just did interviews, especially this interview, as if the old RoA fans weren't 16 year old retards that can't tell the difference between TB and RT or are stupid enough to suck down fluff. Who gives a fuck about pause? NWN, Kotor, BG all had rounds at their core, and are still 100% RT, stop trying to mkae the combat sound like something its not. I liked UFO:Aftermath's RT system all right. I know there is a difference between good and bad RT, just as good and bad TB. But good TB is so much fucking better than the best RT its not even an argument.

They had a chance to really let down their hair and talk like adults to other comprehending adults, but decided not to. Of course, 95% of the posters here are band-wagon ass fucking FPS console pussies that have no taste at all in regards to rpgs, so they were actually probably smart to answer with mass market hype.
 

Mr.Rocco

Novice
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Messages
65
What's this bullshit about choices and consequences when it's linear with same ending?
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,017
Roqua said:
Great intreview VD, great questions.
RPG Codex - asking the right questions since 2002.

Of course its a huge let down to me since the RoA series is my hands-down favorite series.
Same here. Unfortunately, it's clear that the only thing Drakensang has in common with it is the Das Schwarze Auge game system, which is the German DnD equivalent. So, it's like the Baldur's Gate series and NWN OC.

And of course I disagree 100% with a lot of their fluff and "design philosophy." If all consiquences are imediatley apparent, why would I replay the game when all I have to do is save and reload and know exactly how it would of turned out the otherway?
People replay games?!! :shock: But...but...why?!!
 

gumbomasta

Novice
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
10
turn based = good = currently out of favor, which is too bad

Personally, I think turn based combat in RPGs is just out of style right now. Still, check out the success of current non-rpg turn-based strategy games like Civ 4 and Heroes 5. What about the phased based combat of Japanese RPGs? Those games are never going to go real-time anytime soon, but they have legeions of fans and get a lot of love from the press. So why the double standard with contemporary RPG design?

If a company can make a good RPG with fun and deep turn-based combat, RPG fans like me are gonna show their love with their wallets. This interview simply reads that the development House working on Drakensang is playing it safe in their gameplay concepts, choosing proven contemporary gameplay ideas over older styles, like turn based combat.

But as time will hopefully show, turn-based combat, like pea-coats, never goes out of style.

For one, there are substantial graphical improvements. When 15 orcs (animated with motion-capturing and modelled realistically) go at your party in real time, with detailed particle effects, uproarious battle noise and booming sound FX, it makes for really visceral combat. In addition, we tried to have the system give more feedback (making it clear what exactly happens when and for what reason), implement more tactical decisions and design the combat to be more accessible and dynamic.

This game sounds expensive to make, so it makes sense that they're sticking with current trends. Still, particle effects, uproarious battle noise and booming FX mean nothing to me if the game ain't fun. The "implement more tactical decisions and design the combat to be more accessible and dynamic" part of this paragraph definitely needs more elaboration. Less fluff, more meat.

It is another question, whether an RPG that aims to captivate and entertain – which needs to have cinematic, dramatic, emotional aspects in addition to the rules and combat system – is well served by interruptions. I believe that the intellectual, pondering chess-like style of a TB game does not mix well with atmospheric elements, story and emotion, as it breaks the player’s immersion.
that's your personal opinion, game developer. If the turn-based combat is fun, I'm immersed in the combat and lovin it. Look to Betrayal At Krondor as an example of good story existing alongside turn-based fun. Yes, that game is old, but those developers knew what they were doing and the game is still engrossing plot-wise, if you can dig on the old-school appearance.
Jan Lechner: One problem of the question is the assumption that real-time systems are an evolutionary advance over turn-based systems. I think that is wrong. That the one came after the other – chronologically speaking – is a result of technical developments and not advances in gameplay concepts.

Fine. And I think turn-based RPGs like Star Trail or Betrayl at Krondor are fun. I think Baldur's Gate 2 is fun. I'm having fun with modded Oblivion, NWN2 and Rome Total War. To me the above quote is a diversion over the main point: that these developers are trying to appeal to a wider audience and that turn-based RPGs, specifically, are out of favor. Aside from that, their game sounds promising, but I'll hold my breath til they really get into the meat of their game design system. I accept the fact that a truly modernized "Realms of Arkania" is not gonna come from these people. Some other developers are gonna need to carry the torch for turn-based RPGs. You know you want it.
 

suibhne

Erudite
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
1,951
Location
Chicago
Why do idiot game designers keep trying to emulate a totally separate technological medium (movies)? Wtf kind of sense does that even make?

"Immersion" in a movie is predicated on non-interactivity. In a game it's quite the opposite; it's predicated on interactivity. Leaving aside the fact that RTwP is just as "interrupted" as TB - what sort of sense does it make to argue that interactivity outside of combat is immersive, but within combat it's anti-immersive?
 

gumbomasta

Novice
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
10
yeah

Yeah, I'm immersed either way. I'm immersed in the strategic details of a carefully planned combat encounter.
 

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