Game News Forlorn World announced

[Ausir]

Tags: Forlorn World; Ground Zero

<i><a href=http://forlornworld.com/>Forlorn World</a></i>, a Polish indie post-nuclear cRPG has been announced. The game is not new - it's a fusion of two previously unrelated projects - <i>Trinity</i> and <i>Polish Wasteland</i>.
<br>
<br>
<i>Trinity</i> was set in Poland during a nuclear winter, while <i>Polish Wasteland</i> was initially a <i>Fallout 2</i> mod, and later an entirely new game, set in <i>Fallout</i>-like wasteland, in an alternate future where communism in Poland never ended, just like the 50s never seem to have ended in <i>Fallout</i>. As a fusion of those two, <i>Forlorn World</i> takes place in Poland where communism ended only with the nuclear war, but during a nuclear winter.
<br>
<br>
<i>Forlorn World</i> is in the tech-demo phase, and first screenshots will be ready soon.
<br>
<br>
The features are supposed to be:
<br>
- about 20 locations in a fully 3D world
<br>
- non-linear, developed plot
<br>
- lots of party interaction, including relationships and conflicts
<br>
- an advanced physics engine
<br>
- realistic active pause combat system
<br>
- day/night cycles, dynamic shadows and lighting
<br>
- vehicles and modifiable weapons
<br>
<br>
I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.
<br>
<center>
<br>
<a href=/images/news/FW_lkwbojkot.jpg><IMG SRC="/images/news/FW_lkwbojkot_thumb.jpg" /></a> <a href=/images/news/FW_zolnierz.jpg><IMG SRC="/images/news/FW_zolnierz_thumb.jpg" /></a>
<br>
</center>
<br>
Cheers, <b>LooZ^</b>!

 

[Drakron]

Bah, another "end the communism" story ... I rather play a game were we end a corrupt capitalist goverment and start a socialist utopia.

 

[Ausir]

Well, the society is supposed to be still fairly under the influence of communism in Forlorn World, probably with some remains of the commie government.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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

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

 

[aboyd]

I know this will not make me friends here at the Codex, but I prefer paused-based games to turn-based. Of course, it has to be done right. A pause-based game like Lionheart is worse than a turn-based game, especially if the turn-based game will allow for repeated actions (if I tell my fighter to swing his hammer in round 1, he keeps swinging in round 2, unless told otherwise).

My problem with turn-based games is that it starts to feel more like chess and less like a tactical combat game. I prefer it when everyone starts taking action together, as they would in a real-world fight. But as I said, it has to be done right. Baldur's Gate 2 with almost every auto-pause option enabled was about right. The game needed to pause on each spell cast, pause on first sight of an enemy, pause when a character was near death, and pause when a character killed/lost the target. In so doing, I was able to keep hands-on, but the game would roll through the rounds fairly quickly, so that battles took under 20 minutes apiece (except for that group in the sewers, and the Umber Hulks in Nadia's stronghold -- I could rarely do those well in under 45 minutes).

I think that was one of my biggest problems with Fallout. Early in the game, I got cornered by 2 Radscorpions. I could handle them, but for whatever reason, it was going to take a good number of hits. I had to tell the game, over and over, that my character wanted to keep hitting. Over and over. After I won the battle, I was grimacing at the game. I shut it down, and began searching the Web for a "repeated actions" hack or some kind of speedup hack, like there was for Wiz 8. I didn't find it. I got back into the game anyway, but never finished.

I have no idea if Forlorn World will have decent implementation or a terrible one.

-Tony

 

[Jinxed]

Getting the same pic for both thumbnails.

 

[Drakron]

I think you fail to understand what turn base is.

BG2 was turn based, the diference is the game never asked confirmation to iniciate the next turn (unless we made it that way in options, it can be set to pause at each turn).

There is no such thing as "pause based" games, there could be a pause funtion.

 

[merry andrew]

I can't read Polski

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

? BG2 wasn't turnbased. Not in any traditional sense of sequentiality and individual turns. All the turns were executed simultaneously and in realtime, with the possibility of no player input even.

 

[Deacdo]

I could live with "active pause" if it were a fantasy-themed games, but real-time + guns = unplayable, afaic.

 

[Ausir]

Getting the same pic for both thumbnails.

Fixed.

? BG2 wasn't turnbased. Not in any traditional sense of sequentiality and individual turns. All the turns were executed simultaneously and in realtime, with the possibility of no player input even.

It's called phase based.

I can't read Polski

The old Trinity website had an English version, so this one probably also will.

 

[merry andrew]

The old Trinity website had an English version, so this one probably also will.

Woot!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's called phase based.

Phase-based executes all turns individually (not simultaneously) and automatically with no player input for the round's duration, ie, Wasteland, Wizardry 8.

 

[Drakron]

? BG2 wasn't turnbased. Not in any traditional sense of sequentiality and individual turns. All the turns were executed simultaneously and in realtime, with the possibility of no player input even.

Sorry but you are wrong.

BG2 used 2nd ed AD&D rules and its a turn based system, the game was turn based.

I sugest you get familar with D&D rulesets before you say something as silly as "all the turns were executed similtaneous" since in D&D they act on the combat round depending on their iniciative (who gets higher iniciative goes first) that sets the acting order (that is why D&D 3rd edition have a feat called "improved iniciative" that is usually taken by spellcasters).

Your reasoning is based on the fact you dont get a confirmation at the end of the turn to continue/take a action but that does change the core of the combat system was turn base ... there is a real time system on Fallout:Tactics and that does not make it a real time game.

Real time systems have no combat rounds, the best example of one is the TES series with weapon speed, movement speed and casting time.

 

[Shagnak]

It's called phase based.

Phase-based executes all turns individually (not simultaneously) and automatically with no player input for the round's duration, ie, Wasteland, Wizardry 8.

I agree Wizardry 8 is phase-based, but I'm not certain that is a perfect explanation.
Wizardry 8 asked for each characters action when it came to a phase in the round they could do something, so there was player input.

Your reasoning is based on the fact you dont get a confirmation at the end of the turn to continue/take a action but that does change the core of the combat system was turn base ... there is a real time system on Fallout:Tactics and that does not make it a real time game.

I think you are just confusing the player-accessed implementation (what people are generally referring to by TB, PB, RT, RTwP, etc) with the underlying computer-used/"ruleset" implementation. They are can be different.

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.

I fully expect to come back here later and find that the argument is about something completely different.
I'm predicting : potatoes.

Discuss.

 

[Drakron]

Yes ... ruleset.

BG2 combat ruleset is turn based and I hope this clear it.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I agree Wizardry 8 is phase-based, but I'm not certain that is a perfect explanation. Wizardry 8 asked for each characters action when it came to a phase in the round they could do something, so there was player input.

Phase-based executes all turns individually (not simultaneously) and automatically with no player input for the round's duration, ie, Wasteland, Wizardry 8.

I bolded the important part there. The only time when movement during a round was possible in Wizardry 8 was when the player decided to walk or run somewhere: this caused and intermission in combat and allowed the player to make his move, although any enemy turn could still be executed during the move.

Sorry but you are wrong.

BG2 used 2nd ed AD&D rules and its a turn based system, the game was turn based.

I sugest you get familar with D&D rulesets before you say something as silly as "all the turns were executed similtaneous" since in D&D they act on the combat round depending on their iniciative (who gets higher iniciative goes first) that sets the acting order (that is why D&D 3rd edition have a feat called "improved iniciative" that is usually taken by spellcasters).

Interesting.

This was the FAQavailable at the time of Baldur's Gate at the Interplay site.

Combat System

Q: Is Baldur's Gate real time or turn based?
A: The Baldur's Gate engine (The BioWare Infinity Engine) is real time but the game is pauseable and actions may be assigned to characters in your party at that time. This is just an option that a player may use if the action gets a little "out of hand." In general the AI scripting will permit easy control over the 6 character party with minimal need to resort to the turn-based mode. For those of you that recall the excellent Microprose game, Darklands, the combat real-time and pausing system can be considered to be similar. X-Com 3 uses a similar pause feature as well.

Q: How does the combat system actually work?
A: The combat system is based on the rules set out by the Player's Handbook. Baldur's Gate uses these rules and adapts them to the real-time format used in the game. In the game manual there will be a complete rundown explaining all that is needed to know how to play the game. Your characters have a sophisticated AI system (using a scripting language) that will allow them to independently and simultaneously execute your orders. If you wish, you can turn their AI's off and control all of them one by one, in a turn-based mode. This is achieved by pausing the game and then giving orders to each of the PC's you wish. We want the game to be enjoyed by both real-time and turn-based RPG fans.

In other words, that the ruleset is based on what is originally a turn-based system does not make its ingame implementation the same thing.

Your reasoning is based on the fact you dont get a confirmation at the end of the turn to continue/take a action but that does change the core of the combat system was turn base ... there is a real time system on Fallout:Tactics and that does not make it a real time game.

My reasoning is that a realtime combat system where every turn is executed simultaneously has nothing to do with a combat system based on sequential, individual turns. It's the same reasoning that enables me to look at Temple of Elemental Evil, then look at Baldur's Gate and clearly see the former is turn-bases while the later is not, no matter what ruleset it's trying to adhere to. Simply put, it does not play like a turn-based game in any way. Even the Auto-Pause options only provide a semblance, nothing more.

Real time systems have no combat rounds, the best example of one is the TES series with weapon speed, movement speed and casting time.

Except the Elder Scrolls series is not the ultimate example of all that is possible to achieve in realtime combat models or mechanics. Because of this, I point you again to the FAQ of Baldur's Gate, from the same link:

Q: How does initiative work?
A: Each character on the field is on a "personal initiative round." This personal initiative round will be on the order of 3-6 seconds long (you probably can adjust it) - and it corresponds roughly to one 60 second round in AD&D. The rounds are equal in length but are non-simultaneous; that is they do not have exactly the same start and end points for all characters and monsters. Within the personal initiative round the weapons and spells fire off at the same proportionate time that they would get released in an AD&D round. That is, a dagger is used quicker in a round than a two-handed sword. A magic missile gets released sooner after spellcasting starts than a fireball, etc. Initiative is determined each round and modifies the timing of swings and spell casts slightly every round, so each round will be slightly different from preceding and following rounds. If a mage is hit between the time he or she starts to cast and the time that the spell is due to get released, the spell is disrupted. Thus shorter cast-time spells are a definite advantage, exactly as in AD&D. We have been careful to adapt the AD&D ruleset to a realtime system maintaining the exact weapon weightings, spell weightings, and the same proportionate timing occurs in Baldur's Gate as in the original ruleset. All in all we hope the net result is a real-time adaptation of the rules, maintaining the original flavor and balance.

 

[Jinxed]

You beat me to it Roleplayer.

Whatever the ruleset may be, it doesn't change the fact that BG was real time.

 

[Shagnak]

I bolded the important part there. The only time when movement during a round was possible in Wizardry 8 was when the player decided to walk or run somewhere: this caused and intermission in combat and allowed the player to make his move, although any enemy turn could still be executed during the move.

The fact that it is feasible that there can be player input during the round is why I don't think your explanation is quite there yet.

In phase-based, if the player (in some undisclosed implementation) can have input during the round, i.e. when it comes to a phase they can do something in, why would this make it not phase based?
Whether the choice of action of all players is decided at the beginning of a round, or made for each during the phase in which they are allowed to act is not necessarily a part of the meaning of "phase-based". Whether or not there is player input during the round is irrelevant.

I think it is wholely to do with the fact that the characters do not have all of their actions in one "go", they have them throughout the round at different phases of the round.

I.e. - at phase 2 of the round I move, at phase 5 I fire, at phase 8 I reload...with NPC/enemy/other PC's actions also happening between these phases.

As opposed to - it's my turn...so I move, then fire, then reload, all at the one time, uninterrupted by NPC/enemy/other PC's moves.

 

[Drakron]

I usually complain over when people make statements over BG and Fallout with BG being better because its real time as the combat rule system is turned based the same as Fallout.

The whole "LOL turn base sucks n00d" mentality is what leads to things as Bloodlines combat were it had to be significant downgraded in order to fit the RT aspect and the FPS of the game, if NwN and BG have such a good combat system is not because they have a "real time" system, in fact under the hood there is a turn based system.

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).

 

[Shagnak]

if NwN and BG have such a good combat system is not because they have a "real time" system, in fact under the hood there is a turn based system.

But I think the problem with this stance is that most people refer to a game's "mode of play" in terms of how it is presented to the player.
It doesn't matter if the underlying representation is TB, if it is implemented so that it is presented to the player as RT interaction (with all that implies), then that is how people usually categorise it.

If you're going to categorise it as TB just because some internal representation is TB, that the player never gets to see except as some abstraction through an RT implementation, then you'll just create confusion.

 

[Crichton]

Someone should store phase-based and turn-based explanations and keep them around for threads like this.

BG is real-time with pause, it's parent rule-set, AD&D 2nd edition is phase-based.

2nd-edition AD&D,

At the start of the round, everyone picks their action and begins it, they must decide then and they have no idea what actions will take place when. Initiative is rolled and modifed and actions are completed in that order. So a magician starts casting his spell at the start of the round, it is completed when his initiative number comes up. If someone attacking him has their number come up first, they complete their attack before the spell is completed, and if they hit him, the spell fails. It is possible to hit someone while their casting their spell because both actions, the spell and the attack, are happening at the same time, they start at the same time and they end at some random point during the turn. At the end of the round, everyone picks new actions and rolls initiative again.

Baldur's gate is somewhat different because the rounds are not synchronized, you decide on a new action as soon as you've completed the last one, so you can see that someone is casting a spell (and even what spell they're casting) and with a quick weapon, nail them before it's cast. In 2nd edition, you would make the decision to attack a spell-caster without knowing what their action for that round was.

Improved initiative is a 3rd edition feat

3rd edition D&D,

At the start of combat, everyone rolls initiative, and they don't decide anything. When someone's initiative number comes up, they pick an action and it happens right then, there are no other actions extant. So when they decide on their action, they know what the order of subsequent actions will be. It can still be interrupted, but only under special circumstances, i.e. attacks of oppurtunity or actions delayed against a given eventuality (archers choosing to hold fire against spells). After everyone has taken their turn, then it cycles back through the list, initiative is not re-rolled, the order is set.

Personally, I prefer phase-based to turn based and even depending on the circumstances, RTwP to turn-based, but the three are not identical.

 

[Section8]

I usually complain over when people make statements over BG and Fallout with BG being better because its real time as the combat rule system is turned based the same as Fallout.

It's really not. People prefering Baldur's Gate because of its real time combat is a perfectly valid and logical opinion, because that's exactly what it is. There are a few abstractions of the turn based roots of the system, but it is not turn based.

I don't see how an artificial imposition of six second timers between actions is any different to any game that has a timed rate of attack.

The whole "LOL turn base sucks n00d" mentality is what leads to things as Bloodlines combat were it had to be significant downgraded in order to fit the RT aspect and the FPS of the game, if NwN and BG have such a good combat system is not because they have a "real time" system, in fact under the hood there is a turn based system.

You've pinned down Baldur's Gate to a tee, if you change your first statement to:

The whole "LOL turn base sucks n00d" mentality is what leads to things as Baldur's Gate combat were it had to be significant downgraded in order to fit the RT aspect

Baldur's Gate and NWN don't have good combat systems. They have counter intuitive real time systems with arbitrary restrictions and abstractions that bog the whole system down.

I can understand the implementation in Baldur's Gate, because it's basically impossible for one person to control six characters with a broad range of actions in real time. It's far from ideal though. By their own claims, it's expected that the player uses real-time interaction and that pausing is an afterthought so the character can call time out when they're getting overwhelmed. That's addressing a major flaw in the design, with a half-arsed workaround, rather than eliminating the flaw altogether.

The same system in NWN was crap, because 99% of what the game throws at you in combat requires no tactical input from the player, so the game is reduced to sitting back and watching the combat get drawn out by the six second "turns." With a single protagonist, the player is in complete control of their character, and the game should be requiring constant input from the player. NWN tried to emulate Diablo and it's ilk, but convoluted everything by having such a huge delay between player actions.

It also managed to utterly fuck certain parts of the system, like attacks of opportunity.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, NWN/BG do not have turn based combat, and neither do they have "good" combat. Warcraft and Starcraft's "non-building" missions were a better implementation than Baldur's Gate since they didn't have such a massive deviation in random outcomes.

But anyway. Potatoes.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The fact that it is feasible that there can be player input during the round is why I don't think your explanation is quite there yet.

This movement is an option which is decided at the pre-round stage just like any other character action for the turn is decided and has no significant impact in determining how the combat system operates. Because of this, and because the option spends character turns, and because it could be implemented without requiring any player input during the course of the round, it is no different than any other action decided at the pre-round stage, with the sole difference that it is not automated like all other actions (such as attacks or spell casting). 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. 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.

 

[RandomLurker]

Someone should store phase-based and turn-based explanations and keep them around for threads like this.

http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21

So, back to lurking...