Interview Frightening Drakensang interview at RPG Vault

[Roqua]

This has been covered to death you new faggots. Go look at the 'monkey' thread.

What it boils down to is TB combat requires tactical decisions from the player, and relies on the character's skills. RT has minimal tactical decisions simply because of its RT nature, and it relies on the player's reflexes. If you like twitch based combat, good for you, most people here do not.

New? I should lecture your "joined in 2005" ass on the old days.

In any case, your statements are quite applicable to RT combat, but have no bearing on the topic here, RTwP combat.

I don’t give a fuck when you joined. All I care about is that you know good rpg combat, and commandos had it in spades my friend. Know what else had good combat? Mario Brothers 2. The princess good jump really far! I liked to jump and squish heads of mushrooms and pull turnips really fast with the mushroom guy. I wouldn’t mind seeing rpgs adapt combat like that either.

We should make our own game together. Imagine this—commandos in Kupa Land. The commandos could get perks like squash heads and raccoon tail spin. We’d get rid of that savage attribute bullshit and barbaric making your own choices that affect the game garbage.


We’ll make millions.

 

[Crichton]

Well, gothic and jedi academy have one person you control. RPGs and Shogun have the difference of 1 to maybe 10 vs. 100 gizzilion. It kind of is not really a good comparison.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact RPGs don't generally include normal sized tactical engagements has no bearing on what RPGs could or should include and if you're seriously asking about what makes good tactical games, the best way to do anything of any size is RTwP.

If you want to limit the discussion solely to skirmish games, then say so. And in that case, take a hard look at the examples I mentioned of RTwP skirmish tactical games.

 

[Gambler]

And what does it bring to the table the turn based doesn't?

Simultaneous movement, walking patrols, attention zones. In other words, good stealth system. Plus, you can't win by doing something completely unrealistic. Like stepping out of cover, shooting, and going back to cover all in one turn. Oh, and Commandos had vehicles.

And that's just Commandos. In theory, real-time combat can provide much more depth. People could shoot while moving. Two people could kill each other if fired at the same time. In general, events could happen simultaneously, which is how real life works. Someone prepares to throw grenade at you, you shoot him in the hand, grenade falls and explodes after several seconds. Not very likely scenario, but it would be interesting.

Also, real-time games can have timers for various events. For example, drawing sword out would take certain amount of time based on your dexterity. The speed at which you react to event could be based on your perception. So if you're suddenly attacked, your perception and dexterity would determine reaction time.

Twitchiness? Frustration from combat being directly related to your skills

What leet skillz do you need to pause a game and issue orders?

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

In theory, real-time combat can provide much more depth.

In practice it rarely does. I can't even come up with an example where real-time combat is more indepth than a turnbased. This is particularly glaring in the strategy genre when you compare a turn based game like Panzer General to a real-time game like Command & Conquer.

Your examples aren't very good, many of which could be implemented in one form or another in a turn based game. Low dexterity may take up more action points to pull out a sword or are more likely to fail your initiative roll and saving throws against particular events which are based on your perception attribute. You can even implement intercepts so you can act out of turn if your opponent performs a specific action, like attempting to throw a grenade.

 

[Roqua]

Simultaneous movement, walking patrols, attention zones. In other words, good stealth system.

Are you talking about Final Fantasy you stupid fuck? Did you play silent storm? Or JA? Or x-com? TBS’s will beat the shit strategy/tactics wise to your fucking queer ass commandos any day of the week. And JA and SS didn’t go TB until the enemy detected you. They had the fancy simultaneous movement. Walking patrols, and even attention zones.

Plus, you can't win by doing something completely unrealistic. Like stepping out of cover, shooting, and going back to cover all in one turn.

Yes, because stepping out of cover, shooting, and then taking cover again is so unrealistic in a 6 second turn isn’t it you fucking brainiac. You pee sitting down don’t you, you fucking genius.

Oh, and Commandos had vehicles.

Woopity fucking doo da. SS had panzerkins.

In theory, real-time combat can provide much more depth

Yes, of course. And chess would be much more strategic if everyone could move at the same time also, huh? What theory are you talking about? The theory of you-are-fucking-retarded?

People could shoot while moving. Two people could kill each other if fired at the same time.

Wow!!!! That’s some fucking depth.

In general, events could happen simultaneously, which is how real life works.

Well, in real life I can’t pause or get shot 50 times in the head. And I don’t have to completely control me and 4 other squad members every action at the same time. But, if your fancy unknown theories say that leads to more depth, who am I to disagree?

Someone prepares to throw grenade at you, you shoot him in the hand, grenade falls and explodes after several seconds. Not very likely scenario, but it would be interesting.

Yes, very interesting. I would go as far as using the word awesome for that scenario. I would even throw some exclamation points on it and capitalize the word so it would look like this—that scenario was AWESOME!!!!!

Also, real-time games can have timers for various events. For example, drawing sword out would take certain amount of time based on your dexterity.

This idea is not only mind blowing but it is also AWESOME!!!!! Could he draw his sword out while someone else does it simultaneously?

The speed at which you react to event could be based on your perception.

Well, Sherlock Holmes would kick some fucking ass now wouldn’t he?

So if you're suddenly attacked, your perception and dexterity would determine reaction time.

Brilliant!!! I guess Sherlock might have to take some ballerina lessons before he can start reacting to events.

All those genius ideas would, of course, be impossible to implement in a TB game.

What leet skillz do you need to pause a game and issue orders?

None, that’s why RTwP games are all ridiculously easy. Since there isn’t any strategy or tactics they dumbed down the combat to such a ridiculous level that smarty pants like you two are challenged. Name one RTwP rpg that provided a challenge to non-monkeys. You can’t. It hasn’t been made. Twitch games provide a huge challenge, like gothic, through timing and button clicking and reaction. Tb games provide a huge challenge through strategy and tactics. RTwP offers nothing but boring, choiceless repetitiveness and lots of it.

Its fun talking about commandos and TBS’s, but lets talk about rpgs. The only time I ever had to pause in NWN, and IE game, Lionheart, kotor, etc was to drink a potion. That’s it. That’s you guy’s fucking tactics and strategy? Strategic pausing to drink potions?

They even admit it in this interview, you pause to drink potions, change armor, weapons, and other non strategic or tactical decisions. Unless, switching from your fire sword to your ice sword to fight the swarm of 70 billion fire bugs is also somehow strategic or tactical.

You bitches need to start naming some rpgs, as the name of this site is rpgcodex, this is rpg news for an rpg game and we are talking about rpg combat. Name one rpg with rtwp combat that was strategic or tactical combat.

 

[Roqua]

Well, gothic and jedi academy have one person you control. RPGs and Shogun have the difference of 1 to maybe 10 vs. 100 gizzilion. It kind of is not really a good comparison.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact RPGs don't generally include normal sized tactical engagements has no bearing on what RPGs could or should include and if you're seriously asking about what makes good tactical games, the best way to do anything of any size is RTwP.

If you want to limit the discussion solely to skirmish games, then say so. And in that case, take a hard look at the examples I mentioned of RTwP skirmish tactical games.

Bullshit. Rpgs include normal size tactical engagements for rpgs. Wargames, an older genre and what rpgs are based off of, provided normal sized tactical engagements for wargames. Harn came out with a wargame system called battlelust and guess what genius? They labeled it correctly as not a fucking rpg.

Learn what the fuck your talking about before spouting out your stupid fucking jibber jabber.

You two bitches need to have the foundation necessary to enter into a debate on this.

 

[onerobot]

People really need to re-read mefi and spacemoose's posts. Again. And take notes, or you'll be fed to Roqua.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the fact RPGs don't generally include normal sized tactical engagements has no bearing on what RPGs could or should include and if you're seriously asking about what makes good tactical games, the best way to do anything of any size is RTwP.

Look. I like RTwP. I really do, as it's awesome in grand strategy games like Europa Universalis and Supreme Ruler 2010. I also hate it, as it's a Todd-esque abomination in RPGs. Why? In grand strategy games events typically happen over a very long timescale with the exception of battles, which is why RTwP works so well as it allows the passage of time to be adjusted accordingly. Turnbased strategy games run into the problem of everything being forced to happen at the same time, which can lead to strange things like skirmishes happening only once a year.

However, the combat in those games still unfolds at a much slower rate than it does at a skirmish level, which is the level at which the combat in every RPG ever made occurs (and yes, until the second someone does differently it's what we're talking about).

It's all about the amount of time that events unfurl over. In grand strategy games a populace isn't immediately wiped out when war is declared, but in skirmish level games it can be instant death if someone so much as shoots you or puts a sword through your head, and it can happen much faster than one can hit a pause button. Turn-based systems remove much of this as it allows much more time to react, and as things all happen over a very short timescale the problems that plague grand strategic games at this level never occur.

So, TB = Good over a set timescale, good when reaction times are short. RTwP = Good over variable timescales, good when reaction times are long.

edit: Roqua beat me to it.

 

[LlamaGod]

New? I should lecture your "joined in 2005" ass on the old days.

Stuff it, 2004.

 

[Crichton]

Bullshit. Rpgs include normal size tactical engagements for rpgs. Wargames, an older genre and what rpgs are based off of, provided normal sized tactical engagements for wargames. Harn came out with a wargame system called battlelust and guess what genius? They labeled it correctly as not a fucking rpg.

Learn what the fuck your talking about before spouting out your stupid fucking jibber jabber.

You two bitches need to have the foundation necessary to enter into a debate on this.

If an RPG is inherently a skirmish game, why is Fallout an RPG? One only has a single protagonist, completely insufficient for any sort of skirmish tactics.

Oh, wait, RPG stands for role-playing game, which means that it's defined by one's ability to play different roles in the game, not by how many manueovre elements one has under one's command which is why Fallout and Gothic are still role-playing games.

Consequently, one could make a normal-sized tactical game that was also a role-playing game.

Name one rpg with rtwp combat that was strategic or tactical combat.

There is no such thing as "strategic combat" with groups of <20 people. You can have strategy (party composition, character development), but all the combat takes place in the face of the enemy which moves it into the realm of tactics, not strategy.

As far as RTwP in RPGs, compare combat in ToEE to IWD or BG2. In both IWD and BG2, one frequently faces off against combined arms opposing forces (missile weapons, defensive magic, offensive magic, melee, all of which are dangerous). Meanwhile in ToEE, one either faces single opponents or forces comprised of three different types of melee fighters and a few completely ineffective.

Compare fighting a serious spellcaster and his minions in BG2 or IWD and fighting the Master Wizard in ToEE (fargoth? the one with the orb anyway) and his minio- oh wait, it's just him and a little gremlin who mews while your whole party wails on fargoth mercilessly.

This is why I brought up encounter design. Given the balance between melee and magic in D&D games, spellcasters have to start the fight with their melee allies between them and their opponents. In ToEE, you can simply walk up, surround and smash everyone from the head of the fire temple to lareth to that poor bastard of an assasin that tries to ambush 5 people. Tactics involves not only having a party composed of different elements but fighting opponents that aren't homogenous.

There are three fights in ToEE that aren't simply a matter of luck or stats, but also involve tactics,

1. Hendrak and his minions
2. The tower outside the temple
3. Lareth's guards

In each case you actually have a set of opponents that's different enough to matter. The typical fight in ToEE is 15 Normal bugbears, 5 worthless missile bugbears, 2 normal bugbears with reach and 3-4 supa-elite, banded-mail, tumbling bugbears. This involves slightly less thinking than the typical IWD fight, 15 normal orcs, 1-2 super orcs, 3-4 missile orcs (that can actually hit something!) and an orc shaman.

And as far as I'm concerned, ToEE has the best combat system that's ever been used for an RPG, but the combat itself is largely just a matter of continuously imputing a given character's default attack until he's badly enough injured to warrent a healing spell. There simply aren't enough effective enemies that are anything but basic fighters, there are very few spellcasters and they don't generally cast anything (though I've noticed them casting more in Co8 5), there are no effective missile-armed enemies and there are no unusual fighters (rogues, monks) that would take any different handling; the closest they come are bugbear elites, and the only characteristic they have of monks is tumbling.

 

[onerobot]

There is no such thing as "strategic combat" with groups of <20 people. You can have strategy (party composition, character development), but all the combat takes place in the face of the enemy which moves it into the realm of tactics, not strategy.

ATTENTION

It's not about strategy, it's about being given the time to react. It's about planning instead of reacting.

It ALLOWS tactics and strategy.

 

[kingcomrade]

Like stepping out of cover, shooting, and going back to cover all in one turn.

I've never understood people's problem with this. Shooting from cover isn't something that happens in real life?

There is no such thing as "strategic combat" with groups of <20 people. You can have strategy (party composition, character development), but all the combat takes place in the face of the enemy which moves it into the realm of tactics, not strategy.

Big fucking deal. You ZOMG TACTICS NOT STRATEGY people need to get that stick out of your ass.

 

[Claw]

You pee sitting down don’t you, you fucking genius.

Whoa, hold it right there! You got it all wrong. It's not pissing while sitting, that guy's shitting while standing is the problem.

 

[Mefi]

snipping out some guff about ToEE

*sigh*

I'm not wishing to be rude but if you are going to go on about ToEE, it does help to at least read the Co8 readme and find out why all of a sudden spellcasters cast spells and NPCs and monsters all have suddenly started to do things which they should be able to do.

As for fights which aren't a matter of luck and stats - they all are. And every fight also includes tactics. Can you surround individual NPCs and beat them to death? Sure you can, providing that they are willing to talk for some reason and don't go into combat mode straight away. It's a bit like, erm, surprising them or something.

You are straight out confusing the bugs with the system, and then throwing in a healthy dose of design flaws.

And even with all that weighed up, ToEE has a far superior combat system in vanilla than a game like BG2. Which to me says TB is best as even a bugged implementation pisses all over RTwP games.

 

[Deathy]

New? I should lecture your "joined in 2005" ass on the old days.

Fuck, if you want 'who joined first' elitism...

Weighing in on the real time with pause issue, I've found, at least with the Infinity Engine style implementation, that it ruins any pacing that the combat might have had. There's something about being able to pause arbitrarily that takes away any sense of the progression of time in the combat. Maybe I'm just being anal, but this really did get on my nerves.

Playing any infinity engine style game, and also NWN, gave me the sense that I was fighting the system rather than playing the game. I'd find myself pausing too late and missing the potential to assign an action that I could've done a split second earlier, but now will have to wait till the next chance I get to do it (several seconds later). After a few missed oppurtunities, and having to wait entirely too long to do the action I assigned, I get angry at the game, and I find that this ruins my fun. In my armchair game design rulebook, this is a Very Bad Thing.

Other combat systems don't seem to have these problems. I actually get feedback from my input in turn based games, and stuff gets started instananeously in pure real time games. To me, real time with pause just attempts to mash the postive qualities of both real time and turn based into the same system, but ends up failing at that. Further, it removes good qualities that were common to both real time and turned based combat systems.

 

[Crichton]

You are straight out confusing the bugs with the system, and then throwing in a healthy dose of design flaws.

And even with all that weighed up, ToEE has a far superior combat system in vanilla than a game like BG2. Which to me says TB is best as even a bugged implementation pisses all over RTwP games.

As you might have noted from my post, I quite agree that ToEE has an excellent combat system. It's the combat itself I find fault in.

The point of disscussing the actual combat rather than how the system is that Roqua threw a screaming fit demanding an example an RPG with good RTwP combat, completly ignoring explanations of the relative advantages of RTwP or examples of non-RPG RTwP skirmish tactics games.

I quite agree that the implementation of RTwP combat in the IE games isn't great compared with the best examples of RTwP skirmish games, but the RPG with the best TB combat out there (ToEE) is also riddled with flaws. This tells us a lot about combat in RPGs , but little about the relative merits of RTwP and TB. RGPs generally don't put enough effort into scenerio design (FFT and tactics ogre are obvious exceptions), which is why one should look to other genres for the limits of the possible with TB and RTwP.

 

[Crichton]

Fuck, if you want 'who joined first' elitism...

I didn't start this! Blame SpaceMoose!

 

[Mefi]

As you might have noted from my post, I quite agree that ToEE has an excellent combat system. It's the combat itself I find fault in.

The point of disscussing the actual combat rather than how the system is that Roqua threw a screaming fit demanding an example an RPG with good RTwP combat, completly ignoring explanations of the relative advantages of RTwP or examples of non-RPG RTwP skirmish tactics games.

I quite agree that the implementation of RTwP combat in the IE games isn't great compared with the best examples of RTwP skirmish games, but the RPG with the best TB combat out there (ToEE) is also riddled with flaws. This tells us a lot about combat in RPGs , but little about the relative merits of RTwP and TB. RGPs generally don't put enough effort into scenerio design (FFT and tactics ogre are obvious exceptions), which is why one should look to other genres for the limits of the possible with TB and RTwP.

You still haven't found a good implementation in a RPG of RTwP. And despite being gimped to buggery and back in every department, TB in ToEE is a beautiful system. I'll let you figure out why that would be.

If you want to go into skirmish level strategy games, then the very best remain the turn based ones. Which is why X-Com really isn't much fun when playing in RTwP.

 

[Mefi]

Simultaneous movement, walking patrols, attention zones. In other words, good stealth system. Plus, you can't win by doing something completely unrealistic. Like stepping out of cover, shooting, and going back to cover all in one turn. Oh, and Commandos had vehicles.

Roqua answered this. I'd also add that opportunity fire covers the ducking in and out of cover issue. Vehicles?! Wtf has this got to do with RTwP?

And that's just Commandos. In theory, real-time combat can provide much more depth. People could shoot while moving. Two people could kill each other if fired at the same time. In general, events could happen simultaneously, which is how real life works. Someone prepares to throw grenade at you, you shoot him in the hand, grenade falls and explodes after several seconds. Not very likely scenario, but it would be interesting.

Your grenade example has nothing to do with RTwP.

Also, real-time games can have timers for various events. For example, drawing sword out would take certain amount of time based on your dexterity. The speed at which you react to event could be based on your perception. So if you're suddenly attacked, your perception and dexterity would determine reaction time.

You mean kind of like how turn based works?

What leet skillz do you need to pause a game and issue orders?

Absolutely none. Although when you pause is a matter of twitch based reflexes on the player's part. So why bother with pausing time when I can do this all as part of a TB system? The only 'advantage' of real time that you mention is that you can have people all killing each other at exactly the same moment. Which is kind of cute.

This is an old dead horse. There are many threads about it with a lot of good analysis of the advantages/disadvantages of the various systems. Have a poke about and read up.

 

[Twinfalls]

I've never understood why one of the key tropes of the pro-RT position - "combat in the real world happens in real time and therefore it's more realistic" - is so deeply embedded. Do this brigade not realise just how many fucking 'realism'-compromising abstractions are already taking place with RT?

I mean, shit - dialogue in the real world happens in real time. Would you lot argue for real-time dialogue (you must decide your answer in 3 seconds)? No, because its stupid, and adding the paper-thin veneer of adrenalin that real-time gives is no substitute for the deep, satisfying adrenalin of using real tactics and progressing with well-thought out decisions.

Sadly, Mass Effect shows the future. So ingrained is the 'real-time is teh thrilling and fun and realistic' that we are now seeing the idea of real-time being applied to dialogue. Bow before the ruling Twitch-Classes of our planet, bitches.

 

[Roqua]

I’m sorry I said mean and hurtful things. I am menstruating and bloated. Please forgive me, Sir.

I would like to see TB advance to the next level. The possibilities are endless for trying to achieve true party synergy. Image chess with 5 thousand more options, but every move is still crucial and requires heavy thought and planning.

I like RoA’s system far more than ToEE’s, and I like ToEE’s far better than the average, uninspired combat of most TB crpg systems.

I would love to see a shift away from the endless hordes of enemies model so every battle is a huge challenge and far rarer than the filler nonsense that is a staple today.

If Drakensung shifted focus to implementing the Dark Eye system as in the sourcebook, and put an emphasize on lots of key, challenging battles instead of millions of filler battles, this game could have been a genre-advancing game. But I guess BG in 3d is what the people want, so it is what they get.

 

[sheek]

Just something to add: RT can be OK in a one-character RPG, when you have a party it's just stupid. You cannot control all characters in RT so you have to have some kind of automation which very rarely works. And if you have automation it's not a party RPG any more, you are better off watching a movie.

Arkania is one of the classic party-based CRPGs: that's why it's even more moronic than RT in Oblivion or other FPS/RPGs which are designed for solo.

 

[Crichton]

Just something to add: RT can be OK in a one-character RPG, when you have a party it's just stupid. You cannot control all characters in RT so you have to have some kind of automation which very rarely works. And if you have automation it's not a party RPG any more, you are better off watching a movie.

Arkania is one of the classic party-based CRPGs: that's why it's even more moronic than RT in Oblivion or other FPS/RPGs which are designed for solo.

One only needs any kind of automation in the abscence of an auto-pause feature, which is why you can disable all the automated AI scripts in the IE games. If the game pauses whenever characters are allowed a new action, why would you have any more trouble controling your characters than you do in TB? How does the fact that they actions are carried out simultaneously require automation?

 

[Roqua]

why would you want combat to take longer in the IE games? And its far too repetitive and easy to require that level of micromanagement. Hell, i never even cast spells because combat rarely warranted it and not doing it was quicker.

 

[suibhne]

RT sucks because of the interface latency, plain and simple. That's why the "realism" argument never fails to inspire hearty guffaws around my historically-accurate fire pit. The notion that using a computer mouse and keyboard and a (frequently clumsy) game interface to control a party of multiple characters with superhuman/magical abilities in combat with superhuman/magical enemies rendered in computer graphics on a computer screen is somehow more "realistic" in real-time than in turn-based...well.

I mean...well.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

The simple truth is that all these systems discussed here have their place in the RPG-verse. The problem is simply that too few (good) RPG's are being made that we could each simply pick the ones with the combat system we like best, and leave the others to the fans of other systems. It's a market starved of (otherwise) great RPGs that makes people play with combat systems they don't like.