Diogo Ribeiro
Erudite
That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree then, because we're just going to go in circlesRole-Player said: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.
Err, no it wouldn't.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.
So one game and a mod which became a game have both become another game? Right. This has disaster written all over it.Ausir said:Trinity was set in Poland during a nuclear winter, while Polish Wasteland was initially a Fallout 2 mod, and later an entirely new game,
Shsh, don't say that :wink: .DarkUnderlord said:Right. This has disaster written all over it.
Shagnak said:I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.
I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.
I maintain that if I were to make a game wherein the player chose the characters' actions at those points where the character can act in a round (i.e. one of their active phases), rather than all at the beginning of the round, then this is still phase based.
What else would you call it?
In fact, this analogy is much closer to what you are doing.
Namely, calling <phase-based game with player decisions made at phase stops> a <something other than "phase based"> due to decisions being made at phase stops.
If you're going to exclude something being phase-based based on this, then you might as well be excluding TOEE from being TB due to the "exception"* of concurrent turns.
Role-Player said:What would you call a combat system where character turns are executed by the player's hand troughout an active phase, rather than all of them at the beginning? If I was to go by your belief that when the player decides the actions has no bearing on the system, then it would pretty much be akin to turn-based.
and this is to separate it from "turn based" which is:The player (and computer?) decides all actions at the beginning, and then they are acted out in phase order
So your definition is entirely about when the player makes decisions, right?As each player has its turn they decide their action
And turn based being defined by:The player/party has his actions at different points throughout the round, based on what phases he is allowed to act in
All player actions done consecutively during their turn, without interruption
Saying "not turn based" is probably something objective. We can discuss it and come to a conclusion, based upon some agreed-upon standards. Saying they do not have "good combat" is subjective. In my case, I fully agree that NWN was not good combat, but I fully disagree about BG, which I enjoyed so much I long for more games like it.Section8 said:Anyway, the moral of the story is, NWN/BG do not have turn based combat, and neither do they have "good" combat.
Yes, that's why I disliked it, or at least that's close. It was combat dragging, coupled with repetitious actions. It got a little mind-numbing. If just a few things had been streamlined, and I mean pretty minor changes, that game would have been like oxygen to me.Drakron said: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).
Yes, well the discussion certainly got more technical and proficient over the last few hours. I couldn't have pulled up old quotes about the nuances of the BG implementation, as Role-Player did.Shagnak said: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.
Turn-Based: Delay = On, Pause = Off. After every creature's turn, there is an unlimited time to make a decision on the next course of action.
Phase-Based: Delay = Off, Pause = On. *All* creatures complete their turn in sequence then the game pauses. You give commands to all creatures in your control. Then all creatures take a turn again in sequence.
Shagnak said:See, told you we would go in circles
So your definition is entirely about when the player makes decisions, right?
Role-Player said:When the player chooses the action is as important to defining phase-based as when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions.
However, my definition is shared by quite a few people I know. And even some from here, going by some threads that I wisely made a point of not getting involved in.
I guess we're not RPG-elite
Yeah, just looking at it now. I missed the url posted above, initially.Role-Player said:I think Section8's editorial on combat systems pretty much nails it down in terms of how each system works.
That's okay, I'm used to looking like a dumbass.Also if it's any consolation I understand where you're coming from, though I don't agree with all of it (as demonstrated in this thread).
Role-Player said:That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.
Shagnak said:I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.
I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.
Wut.Human Shield said:Shagnak said:I don't think its an exception at all, it still comes under the definition of what phase-based is; i.e. based on phases.
I still maintain that the concept of "phase-based" has nothing to do with when the player chooses the action. It is entirely to do with when the participants are allowed to take their separate actions. i.e. at different parts of the round rather than consecutively without interruption.
Characters are allowed to move freely and cancel orders at anytime.
You can't move freely and have phasebased. Movement has to be set into different phases.
Wut.Human Shield said:BG2 is just real-time with rules. Don't be stupid.
Best post evar! I wonder if I can fit that motherfucker into my signature...Otaku_Hanzo said:Role-Player said:That's interesting, I just realized that the site seems to have the image and background I made for it but there's no credit given... Then again I never got around to finishing it so that's reasonable.
I highly recommend a killing spree. No mercy. Fuck 'em all.
I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.
Balor said:I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.
Do you understand that it puts in the same line with people who claim 'This game is turnbased, so it sucks and I will never play it'?
Since when Fallout became a great game simply because it was turnbased, not because of plot, ability to roleplay and general quality? Perhaps POR2 is a masterpiece (well, masterpiece of SHIT it is) too?
May I call you a combat whore? I think I'll call you anyway.
If this system is like SPM in E5, it would be no worse then TB, that's for sure... I'm not even talking about game’s other qualities.
At least, for most purposes, up to and including simulation of real combat the best possible way.
P.S.
Oh, you don't need to remind me that 'TB is TEH PURE FUNZOR!".
I know. It is. So is SPM. And even RT - you just need to know that task it must accomplish.
I find it amusing that RPG "Fuck mainstream" Codex sniffs upon projects that not mainstream by definition.
I mean, games that gave a goal to have as much realism as it's possible, for instance.
And SPM (that sounds exactly like mentioned above 'realistic active pause') is best suited for realistic simulation of combat, allowing you to as much tactical options as you wish, while maintaining a good degree of control over the battlefield (even perfect, even you are willing to pay the price in a few extra pauses).
Don't like it? Fine. But one thing if you don't like something because it's stupid, and completely another if you just don't need it/get it.
Stupidity deserves punishment, that's for sure.
But does diversity deserve it?
Shagnak said:Wut.
True. You know what else is fun? Painkiller or Far Cry. Sadly, neither is an RPG. So, I'm sure that RT is da bomb and loads of fun, but it sucks in an RPG. Yeah, yeah, I know, I still haven't tried that PMS system that you are raving about, but I will one day.Balor said:Oh, you don't need to remind me that 'TB is TEH PURE FUNZOR!".
I know. It is. So is SPM. And even RT - you just need to know that task it must accomplish.
What definition is that? Fate, for example, is an indie game, but it's as mainstream as it gets.I find it amusing that RPG "Fuck mainstream" Codex sniffs upon projects that not mainstream by definition.
Who gives a shit? Should we applaud and welcome such a game just it because it tries to be different for the sake of being different? Realism in an RPG sucks ass. Gameplay in an RPG revolves around concepts: concept that your character can go from a noob to an all powerful hero in one adventure, concept of hit points, concept of carrying a truckload (literally) of things in his pockets, concepts of killing hundreds of bad guys and stopping armies, concepts of arriving in a far away place instantly, etc.I mean, games that gave a goal to have as much realism as it's possible, for instance.
So, RPG is about a knight running around killing things after all? Teh irony.Gameplay in an RPG revolves around concepts: concept that your character can go from a noob to an all powerful hero in one adventure, concept of hit points, concept of carrying a truckload (literally) of things in his pockets, concepts of killing hundreds of bad guys and stopping armies, concepts of arriving in a far away place instantly, etc.
Yea, yea, teh funzor, indeed.Is chess realistic? No, but it's a fun game.
Balor said:Unfortunately, it must be some kind of reference I have no knowledge about.
So you might as well have posted an other goatse picture - it'll make as much sense.
I didn't say that, but nice try.Balor said:So, RPG is about a knight running around killing things after all? Teh irony.
Try LARP. I'm sure that Kamaz and his bunch of ... "merry men" would be more than happy to keep you company :p lolBut what if I don't care a lot about chess and like realistic games?
Depends on a game, doesn't it?Anyway, when it comes to RPGs, combat is not really important, and RT or TB or whatever is only for combat, naturally.
It's also the only game of such caliber.Btw, if you'll remember, P:T is rightfully considered one of greatest RPGs of all time. And it's RTWP .
And who said that? If I'm not mistaken, Saint's comment was "I was fairly interested until the "active pause" bit.", which implies "I don't like it". For the record though, combat in every RTwP RPG I played was inferior to that of well done TB games.Don't like it? Fine. Just don't say that it's inferiour because of it. See above about "stupidity vs variety".
Not a chess player, I guess.And besides - greater realism -> greater immersion.
Chess IMMERSIVE?
Balor said:But what if I don't care a lot about chess and like realistic games?
Again, let me repeat:
Don't like it? Fine. Just don't say that it's inferiour because of it. See above about "stupidity vs variety".
And besides - greater realism -> greater immersion.