Fucking RTwP in Project Eternity? HOW DOES IT WORK? TB vs RTwP

[Anthony Davis]

It's funny you say that, to me they feel exactly the same (minus rule changes).

I'm sure the people who were (and still are) massively butthurt that Neverwinter Nights wasn't another Baldur's Gate will be thrilled to hear that.

I honestly had no idea there were people upset over that. I thought that NWN1 and the toolset were very well received. Granted, the original campaign was garbage, but the tools and ability to create new content was unheard of at that time in video game history.

 

[Infinitron]

No, the problem is that it does work. The problem is that the way to play most effectively in the game is also the way to make it the most boring. That is a big problem. RTwP is asking players to gimp themselves to make the game fun.

No, it doesn't work for YOU. For example, as somebody who came to Baldur's Gate directly from Ultima 7, a game that features far less control over combat, I found myself completely at home with the Infinity Engine. I didn't feel gimped, I felt powerful.

See what I mean?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Umm...DA2 used the same engine as DA:O.

Pretty sure they ditched the DA engine to make DA2 look more awesome.

 

[Infinitron]

Umm...DA2 used the same engine as DA:O.

Pretty sure they ditched the DA engine to make DA2 look more awesome.

What, in the year or so it took to develop DA2?

I thought even 18 months wouldn't have been enough, VD. Then again, considering how the game turned out...

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/08/dragon-age-2-preview-a-shot-of-adrenaline/

More obvious and significant than the story are the changes made to the graphics and combat. While it might appear to run on a new engine, Dragon Age 2 employs an evolved version of Origins' Eclipse engine (now called the Lycium engine internally). Gameplay designer Dan Lazin tells me the different look was achieved not only through the improved graphical features of the engine, but also in the types of art assets crafted for it. "The art style is a bit more distinct -- stylized yet still realistic," Lazin says.

 

[Average Manatee]

No, the problem is that it does work. The problem is that the way to play most effectively in the game is also the way to make it the most boring. That is a big problem. RTwP is asking players to gimp themselves to make the game fun.

No, it doesn't work for YOU. For example, as somebody who came to Baldur's Gate directly from Ultima 7, a game that features far less control over combat, I found myself completely at home with the Infinity Engine. I didn't feel gimped, I felt powerful.

See what I mean?

No, because what you feel is irrelevant. Either you pause constantly in order to play well or you don't to play badly. It is a bad system when players are encouraged to play badly in order to not test their patience. That IS what a RTwP system does and that IS gimping the player.

 

[Infinitron]

No, because what you feel is irrelevant. Either you pause constantly in order to play well or you don't to play badly. It is a bad system when players are encouraged to play badly in order to not test their patience. That IS what a RTwP system does and that IS gimping the player.

Diminishing returns, ever heard of them? You absolutely don't need to pause all the time to play well enough.

I don't know about you but I'd rather have fun than be a perfectionist. Do you also reload a saved game if you don't get through an encounter with full HP? Must play perfectly, after all!

 

[Jaesun]

It's funny you say that, to me they feel exactly the same (minus rule changes).

I'm sure the people who were (and still are) massively butthurt that Neverwinter Nights wasn't another Baldur's Gate will be thrilled to hear that.

I was one of those people.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Infinitron:

I've never said you can't make an RPG in 18 months. I said you can't make a quality RPG and DA2 has all the signs of greatly reduced quality and scope - single location, generic wilderness, heavily reused assets and locations (same cave would have different doors and entry points, etc).

 

[Infinitron]

It's funny you say that, to me they feel exactly the same (minus rule changes).

I'm sure the people who were (and still are) massively butthurt that Neverwinter Nights wasn't another Baldur's Gate will be thrilled to hear that.

I was one of those people.

Hah, it makes you think, doesn't it? Are game developers incapable of seeing things from the viewpoint of the players of their games, because they tend to see everything from the backend perspective of the engine?

 

[Average Manatee]

No, because what you feel is irrelevant. Either you pause constantly in order to play well or you don't to play badly. It is a bad system when players are encouraged to play badly in order to not test their patience. That IS what a RTwP system does and that IS gimping the player.

Diminishing returns, ever heard of them? You absolutely don't need to pause all the time to play well enough.

I don't know about you but I'd rather have fun than be a perfectionist. Do you also reload a saved game if you don't get through an encounter with full HP? Must play perfectly, after all!

Maybe you are used to resting after every encounter or regenerating health, but in Real RPGs (tm) resource conservation throughout an area is of the utmost importance, and not playing to your 100% ability to preserve yourself is setting yourself up for failure later down the road. Playing well is how you avoid the need to savescum, not the cause of it.

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics.

 

[Jaesun]

It's funny you say that, to me they feel exactly the same (minus rule changes).

I'm sure the people who were (and still are) massively butthurt that Neverwinter Nights wasn't another Baldur's Gate will be thrilled to hear that.

I was one of those people.

Hah, it makes you think, doesn't it? Are game developers are incapable of seeing things from the viewpoint of the players of their games, because they tend to see everything from the backend perspective of the engine?

Indeed. Having read this thread now (and Anthony's excellent explanations of the combat mechanics) I now realize I was just butthurt all along.

 

[Infinitron]

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics. End of story.

One man's "worse" gameplay is another man's "non-crazy OCD" gameplay.

But I don't think I'm going to convince you, so fuck it.

 

[Average Manatee]

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics. End of story.

One man's "worse" gameplay is another man's "non-crazy OCD" gameplay.

But I don't think I'm going to convince you, so fuck it.

But thats the thing. Playing well in RTwP IS crazy OCD. Which is the problem. Playing well in TB is not OCD at all. Playing well in RT is not OCD. That is why those systems work.

 

[Infinitron]

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics. End of story.

One man's "worse" gameplay is another man's "non-crazy OCD" gameplay.

But I don't think I'm going to convince you, so fuck it.

But thats the thing. Playing well in RTwP IS crazy OCD. Which is the problem. Playing well in TB is not OCD at all. Playing well in RT is not OCD. That is why those systems work.

I'm pretty sure you can find ways to go OCD in just about any minimally complex game. "Must loot everything!" "Must not lose HP!" etc, etc

Like I said it's a matter of what you're used to, it's different for every player.

 

[Average Manatee]

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics. End of story.

One man's "worse" gameplay is another man's "non-crazy OCD" gameplay.

But I don't think I'm going to convince you, so fuck it.

But thats the thing. Playing well in RTwP IS crazy OCD. Which is the problem. Playing well in TB is not OCD at all. Playing well in RT is not OCD. That is why those systems work.

I'm pretty sure you can find ways to go OCD in just about any minimally complex game. "Must loot everything!" "Must not lose HP!" etc, etc

Like I said it's a matter of what you're used to, it's different for every player.

There's a big difference between the OCD you describe and the OCD of "I would rather not have my mages standing around like idiots taking hits".

 

[Anthony Davis]

Game mechanics that encourage players to play worse are bad mechanics. End of story.

One man's "worse" gameplay is another man's "non-crazy OCD" gameplay.

But I don't think I'm going to convince you, so fuck it.

But thats the thing. Playing well in RTwP IS crazy OCD. Which is the problem. Playing well in TB is not OCD at all. Playing well in RT is not OCD. That is why those systems work.

I disagree.

They are fundamentally two different skills which require different thought processes and motor skills.

RTwP motor skills are more similar to RTS micro management, albeit with the mentioned pause. The thinking portion of the game requires you to understand that everyone is take their turn at the same time. You need to juggle a lot more mentally as you have to plan your spells, spell interrupts, and timing for AoEs and other abilities more carefully. For those who like it, RTwP is really engaging and a very active process.

TB motor skill requirements are almost non-existent. The thought process however requires quite a bit more, more akin to a chess match. Sometimes this can be complicated even further when the turns are not grouped up by team, but rather by initiative such as in ToEE. For those who like TB, they usually like it because they have more time to predict and "see" the future moves. They can plan better. For the most part the enjoyment people feel when playing TB doesn't come from the action, but rather "seeing the plan" and then making sure the "plan comes together".

To me, they are fundamentally different.

However, I don't let them stop me from enjoying the game. IWD and especially IWD2 are probably my favorite IE games.

 

[Infinitron]

Anthony Davis

Back to our original topic.

You say you've never worked on a TB game. But can you describe the playtesting process of combats in RTwP games? Just how finely tuned are they, typically?

 

[almondblight]

No, because what you feel is irrelevant. Either you pause constantly in order to play well or you don't to play badly. It is a bad system when players are encouraged to play badly in order to not test their patience. That IS what a RTwP system does and that IS gimping the player.

Average Manatee - Have you played Hearts of Iron or the newer Combat Mission games? The problems you describe are mostly the cause of instantaneous action, which isn't inherent in RTwP. In fact, other than movement I don't think it was even a problem with Infinity Engine combat (there was a delay between drinking potions). In games like Hearts of Iron or Combat Mission (the newer ones, the older ones are phase-based), it takes time for units to do anything, so it's much more methodical. Both games are also much more tactical than the majority of the turn based games I've played.

Though even with instantaneous action, I paused the game to issue orders a lot towards the end of Myth (not really meant to be a RTwP game, but you could do it), and it didn't seem to make the game any worse. Archers moved slower than Ghols, so if you tried to kite them you would be screwed. The problems with the Infinity Engine games aren't inherent in all RTwP games, a lot of it is just poor design.

 

[Anthony Davis]

Anthony Davis

Back to our original topic.

You say you've never worked on a TB game. But can you describe the playtesting process of combats in a RTwP game? Just how finely tuned are they?

I wish Jeff Husges or Josh Sawyer were here, they could explain a lot of this better than I could. I'll try to give some grossly simplified examples.

Now I'm going to use time here, which could be used for RT or RTwP - but that's really semantics. With some minor adjustments the following example could also be used for TB.

If I can do standard ability FOO once a second for Y damage, then special ability BAR, which I can only use once every 10 seconds, needs to be at LEAST as good as standard ability FOO times 10. The key phrase there is "as good". Maybe its straight damage, that's the easiest, maybe instead it is adding a status effect, a DoT or a buff. The later makes the balancing difficult and requires multiple plays to get it right.

The testing has to keep in mind what the ultimate goal is:

1. the gameplay mechanic needs to be fun, or build towards fun. The valleys are just as important as the peaks when measuring the beats for how fun something is.
2. the gameplay mechanic should make the player feel rewarded, empowered, or both.
3. all of the various gameplay mechanics that can interact with each other need to be mapped out so as to better understand the relationship. For example of something horrible wrong, in the early days of WoW, before diminishing returns on stuns and mezzes, the Shaman had Frost Shock. Frost Shock stunned the opponent for LONGER than the cooldown on Frost Shock AND it did a lot damage. Shamans could just hold the Frost Shock button down and as long as they didn't run out of mana, they were going to win the fight. Obviously they fixed this later, but it was very frustrating and obviously not fun for anyone other than the Shaman.
4. If a gameplay mechanic choice, ie choose ability FOO or choose ability BAR always results in people choosing FOO, then it is not a real choice and something is wrong.

I actually have to wrap this up, I gotta get ready to meet the family for lunch. I'm not sure if I am exactly answering your question, but I'll end it by saying that QA, balance passes, and design involvement every step of the way is very important in making combat feel strong and rewarding.

 

[quasimodo]

I never found it particularly twitchy either. Never understood those complaints. Believe it or not, something can be both real-time and slow-paced and methodical.

For example, hordes of real twitch gamers complained about DA:O's "slow" combat.

This is correct. At least in my experience games that slow down action time (Drakensang as mentioned earlier or DA as you said) do in fact make RTwP much more interesting. But then you have essentially made is quasi turn based. Turn based is nothing but the round turn of the player lasting infinitely long until action is taken. A quasi turn based RTwP is ROUND (opposed to Turn) lasting VERY long. The advantage is of both worlds: Fast paced gameplay of RTwP and tactical combat of TB.

As one who dislikes RTwP quite a lot, I found this idea to be very interesting.

I like the "I go...You go" rhythm of TB and dislike the frantic action followed by artificial pause of RTwP.

I wonder if a slider which slows the pace of the game would result in something that is actually fun to play.

 

[Infinitron]

I actually have to wrap this up, I gotta get ready to meet the family for lunch. I'm not sure if I am exactly answering your question, but I'll end it by saying that QA, balance passes, and design involvement every step of the way is very important in making combat feel strong and rewarding.

Well, not really - I was thinking more about the design of individual combat encounters. But that was certainly informative.

Maybe tomorrow?

 

[Infinitron]

I wonder if a slider which slows the pace of the game would result in something that is actually fun to play.

Total War, Myth...I would say the answer is yes.

 

[Anthony Davis]

I actually have to wrap this up, I gotta get ready to meet the family for lunch. I'm not sure if I am exactly answering your question, but I'll end it by saying that QA, balance passes, and design involvement every step of the way is very important in making combat feel strong and rewarding.

Well, not really, I was thinking more about the design of individual combat encounters, but that was certainly informative.

Maybe tomorrow?

Lunch just got pushed back to 1pm, so I have a little more time.

I see. Combat Encounters.

Well, like a good DM, the designer should already have a good idea on how a fight needs to go to be both challenging and possible to win. In some games, like DnD, this becomes an exponentially difficult problem to solve with a human being involved. These encounters are all scripted, but the player's design of his character in NWN, IWD, BG, etc, is all controlled by a human.

In many cases that Human player is creating a character that might not be min maxed. In fact, that character might be chock full of role-playing goodness but be horrible in combat.

A good example of this, in the beginning of MotB, the caverns were originally filled with golems and creatures that could not be flanked or sneak attacked. If you were playing as a thief, which meant light weapons, you got WORKED. Play tests revealed this.

To solve it, we added enchanting materials very early and a new enchantment that allowed you crit and flank golems and constructs. (I might have some details fuzzy, this was a while ago).

That actually ended up NOT being enough, so we added a +3 light weapon WITH the enchantment in one of the dungeon portions of the initial starting map.

Now if that had failed, we would have had to change the creatures.

Now this is just an example, and it mainly pertains to systems where you have the freedom to create a character that is terrible, at least as far as combat is concerned. The bottom line here is being able to identify the problem. In the example above, this was easy because I played as a rogue in NWN2 OC and I got DESTROYED in MotB and I told Kevin Saunders. Jabby has a similar experience. Kevin worked on it, realized what the situation was, and came up with a solution.

Now in PnP, with a human DM, this isn't an issue. I remember when Andy Woo was running a bunch of us through Pathfinder. Josh made a cleric, Father Oswyn, who had 8 Str, 14 Wis, and 18 Int. Father Oswyn was also like 55 years old. He did this for role playing reasons and it was a lot of fun. Trying to play Father Oswyn in IWD or IWD2 would be extremely difficult.

Now in DS3, we had a pretty good idea of what all the different builds were for the 4 classes. At that point it is just adjusting damage numbers and status effect durations till it feels fair for the difficulty. Then you just repeat over and over again with each character and with different builds.

At Obsidian, we had a sharepoint page (similar to wiki) where you could put in your class and build information and how the game played, which abilities you liked, which you think were too strong or too weak. A lot of it is also listening and then explaining abilities or situations. Did you try dodging? Do you understand how blocking works? What about this, what about that? That in turn could reveal some areas that are too complicated and need to be clarified.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to time.

ps.
This was a little disjointed, I was just kind of rambling.

 

[Infinitron]

Thanks! It all sounds a bit haphazard but it was actually pretty much what I expected.

 

[sea]

One thing I do like about RTwP over turn-based systems is the synchronous movement of characters. You can't always bet on having turn priority and therefore winning out - you have to plan ahead a little more as a result. Turn-based gameplay is awesome for coordinating things between multiple characters and getting exact, perfect control, but if a system is not designed to *need* that perfect control then RTwP can actually be preferable just because it gives you multiple degrees of control and investment. Some people will say "but a game shouldn't have trash mobs that make you want to get through combat faster!" but there are so few RPGs without trash combat that this is basically just a theoretical concern.

It's also a bit of a silly reason, but I also feel that synchronous gameplay is a bit more realistic and intuitively it's easier to relate to as a result - you're not dealing with abstract action points etc., but rather with temporal and spatial restrictions which we already understand in real life. I don't have to sit there doing math in my head, I can just *know* when to react to something, and how, by watching what's going on.

One downside of RTwP is that, due to the way combat plays out, it can encourage the whole "player wins because player is player" mindset, that is, winning not because of better tactics and party management but because the player has better stats than everyone else. After all, a real-time system allows for different levels of attention, and you have to create it in such a way that players who want a more action-style experience won't be left behind. That can lead to compromises in the character system, game balance, etc. which aren't always good, though strictly speaking there is nothing stopping you from making very demanding and brutal RTwP combat as well.