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.

Immature FO3 fun

Nagling

Educated
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
65
Have to agree with you triCritical this thread do really fit into the gush/whine about recent trends.. Heck one of those posters say: The problem with TB is interactivity..

So is this a general trend, do players now aday shun interactivity and crave non-interactive computer games? Will the next generation of CRPG take this into its full potential and reintroduce the games you could watch some movie actor who didn’t make it into the movie industry instead of actually play..

Edit: Me Grumpy today.
 

triCritical

Erudite
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,329
Location
Colorado Springs
From reading what most people say, is that they would rather trade temporal realism for interactivity. Frankly, being the optimist I am, I just don't think they realize what they are missing. If people new what you are capable of doing in a good TB game. I do not think they would settle for Pause and Play NWN style crap. Lets face it, the last pause and play game of big fame was NWN and DS, and both of those games features combat that was boring and just not very fun. The idea is to give players control, when on the micro level. The problem with the IE style combat is that it took a system from RTS games which are on a macroscale with resource management and applied them to CRPG's which don't have nearly the same amount of stuff to do. So the end result is sitting there watching microscale battle intended for macroscale games. Its truly a pity.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Best quotes from that thread!

alkera said:
Phase based, as is normally seen in pen and paper RPGs.

Actually, PnP RPGs are turn based. Phase based is where everything sets up their moves at the start of the round, then the round is played out. Wasteland is an example of this.

Hector Syr said:
Wasteland was turn based. I played it turned based, not this phased based nonsense.

Uhhhh.. No, because every character's moves are set up before the round is executed. In turn based, your actions are done in sequence. You execute your moves, then the next guy, then the next guy, etc. Laser Squad Nemesis is also a good example.

Gimble said:
And no, I don't think assuming combat in VB will be quite similar to combat in FO1&2 is necessarily a good idea. Technology has changed considerably, the 'style' for games has changed considerably, and the story itself for VB may be substantially different than the stories in FO1&2.

Yet there were real time CRPGs back in the 1980s, despite the "low" technology then.

Unit-Uz52 said:
Unless combat is more interesting in FO3 I go with pause time. Turnbased is just usually to slow for me to enjoy. Its the primary reason I haven't yet finished either Fallout 1 or 2. I enjoy most everything else about those games and some aspects of the combat but overall it just isnt my cup of tea and takes way to long to endure.

Ever wonder if anyone knows about the combat speed slider in Fallout? I wonder this a lot.

Sark03 said:
Turn based really sucks when you are facing weak enemies but still have to sit through the boring combat rounds.

This is a question of game design, not turn based. If you're facing weak enemies often later in the game like the ants in Broken Hill, some designer dropped the ball there.

Yaratech said:
I voted for pause-time, as I support a system that combines the action-packed flow of real-time, with the depth and tactical options of turn-based. If only one viable system was put in place, I would take pause-time any day.

Except it eliminates the tactical use of the environment for cover since every move you make, the enemy instantly responds to. You won't notice this as much in D&D games because many things have to run up to you to attack you, but in Fallout where most everything uses guns...

Yeratech said:
Maybe the six-second round is driving you insane. Why not move a slider and play with a three-second round instead? The slider would speed up the round. A computer can easily handle the simply task of accelerated rounds. This need not mean that all animations are ridiculously fast. Rather, the delay between actions is reduced for everyone.

This guy needs to learn that in real time, actions and animations for those actions need to be delt with during that round. Making the round shorter would just mean less things you can do every round.

In terms of D&D, if you had three second rounds, you'd only get to attack every other round at low levels.. FUN!
 

EEVIAC

Erudite
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
1,186
Location
Bumfuck, Nowhere
There's an interesting article on this site, if people haven't read it yet. I honestly believe dev's don't think that people have the patience to play TB anymore, that we can't draw a line between our twitch/grognard gaming. The apocryphal assertion that RT supercedes TB is something that will only be disproved by implementation, hopefully through ToEE.

Its interesting to note that 31% want BG style RT with a pause.

Dirty Harry - "I know what you're thinking, did he fire six shots or only five..."

Ian - "Actually Harry, you only fired one. The others were cosmetic shots."

And wouldn't that be just dishy.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Nice quote collection, Saint. Here is my favourite

Sark03 said:
The BG pausable RT is a great compromise because it allows you to micromanage when you need/want to, but just sit back and let the AI do the job when you're brain isn't necessary.
You know, so far this is the best definition of BG series and IE games, it should have been a marketing slogan: "when your brain isn't necessary" ( or if you don't have one, or if you have one but don't know how to use it :lol: )
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Vault Dweller said:
You know, so far this is the best definition of BG series and IE games, it should have been a marketing slogan: "when your brain isn't necessary" ( or if you don't have one, or if you have one but don't know how to use it :lol: )

Yeah, that annoys me about today's era of gaming. I remember when CRPG games catered to mental problem solving. Even the combat in them used to require some degree of working the odds, what counters what, if I do something this turn - will it hurt me in the long run, and so on. Now, thinking or requiring a player to think seems to be taboo. So, you end up with things like Dungeon Siege where everything is done for you. Even masturbation is a more fulfilling activity.

Oh, and while I'm at it, this has to be the most ironic thing ever said on the IPLY forum:

I think I'm Paranoid said:
he combat doesn't make the RPG - it's the other way around.

Considering the sheer amount of combat in every infinity engine game barring one, I'd say they're definitely RPGs made around the combat system.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
Ugh...I really do hate reading the Interplay forums. The quotes from there in this thread alone contain enough clueless stupidity to make me consider a career in suburban trash genocide.
 

Zetor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,706
Location
Budapest, Hungary
I think the paused real time system works in precisely one game [Freedom Force], but then again I'm biased. ;) Yeah, TB combat could work in FF as well, but it'd probably slow the action down which doesn't really fit the superhero genre IMHO.

@Rosh:
I dunno, at least some of the folks on the IPLY boards seem capable of coherent thought and most of them even know how to use a keyboard.
OTOH, some other forums could use a little genetic weeding, to paraphrase Cassidy. :P

-- Z.
 

Chadeo

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Messages
111
Location
OR, USA
I fail to understand why more people do not implement the x-com turn based system. The fact that you had fog of war, combined with the enemy able to act on your round, made for some crazy tense combats. Add to this the multi level terrain (blows my mind people can’t do this well in modern games), slightly modifiable terrain (again something that is so cool, yet something most modern games never do, not even a little. I mean come on, how hard is it to let my fireball light the grass on fire and blow out a door. Oh yeah, it is due to this obsession with pre-rendered backgrounds.), skills that would improve through use thus giving you an incentive to try to keep key veterans alive, moral affects when your leaders would get killed, research….argh I need to stop now before I get even more bitter.

TOEE should be interesting with the attacks of opportunity, but still it will not have the fog of war that makes such attacks so interesting.

Quake and Diablo work GREAT with real time combat, and I could even see ways to add on heavy rpg elements while keeping the real time combat. The problem is people design these “rpgs” with “old school rpg/pnp” combat rules and systems and then try to hack on a real time engine. It does not work. It will never work. They will get doing, we will keep hating it, and for god knows why it will keep selling millions.

I just wish this lame pause real time crap would die. I wish the hybrid, boring as hell, spectator combat would die.

Then again I wish they had more writers than artists, and more dialog options than types of armor.
 

triCritical

Erudite
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,329
Location
Colorado Springs
You say suburban genocide, genetic weeding. I say HUMAN SHIELDS. Believe me when I say that these are the kind of people that would volunteer for that kind of work.

Anyhow, I go to the IPLY boards, so you don't have to, consider it a gift for those who might get an ulcer reading them.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
triCritical said:
Anyhow, I go to the IPLY boards, so you don't have to, consider it a gift for those who might get an ulcer reading them.
And for that I sincerely thank you. I don't know how you do that, but I'm glad that you are able to withstand that stupidiy vortex. What's your secret? Impervious Sanctity of Mind? :D
 

triCritical

Erudite
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,329
Location
Colorado Springs
Vault Dweller said:
And for that I sincerely thank you. I don't know how you do that, but I'm glad that you are able to withstand that stupidiy vortex. What's your secret? Impervious Sanctity of Mind? :D

Just call me your friendly St. preaching the word.;) My new avatar over there is a picture of Aquinas with Canon written over. My goals are now clear.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
I think I'm Paranoid said:
However, it's a matter of opinion whether complete control/micro-management is more important than fast-paced, immediate battles.

This guy knows we're talking about CRPGs, right? One of the basic tenants of a CRPG is that you control a character or characters.

It's also funny they're talking about the AI of the game automatically doing the same thing over and over again for you until you tell it to stop. I fail to see how removing interaction from a game is better in any way, since games are supposed to be interactive. That's the point of a video game versus a movie, isn't it?

It's rather quirky. They used to deny the fact it was less interactive. Now they're saying it's a matter of opinion that it's not as good.

spent_clip said:
Taking the ball and running with your groin-shot post, it seems to me that it would be easy enough to do in realtime w/pause WITHOUT constantly having to pause/unpause to check on the %-chance-to-hit-bodypart X thing ASSUMING THAT THE GAME HAS A PAUSE ON X EVENT feature. (IE had this so its not new, though it could use expanding)

Which actually makes it slower than turn based. If you had a decent agility and the right perks, traits, and weapon, you could get several attacks per round, right? Action Boy + Supersledge + 8AG = 3 Attacks per round. That would mean the action breaks three times per round just to allow aimed shots like that.. You're talking about something three times slower, really, and I doubt you'd want to have that turned on anyway because you don't really want to aim every shot. This right here is a PRIME example of why BG's combat would translate poorly to Fallout's mechanics.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Even more funnehs.

Gimble said:
As it is, somebody at BIS/IPLAY is going to have to make a decision on how "sellable" a turn-based game is, all other factors being equal. And, today, a TB PC game is more than a gamble that a RTwP implementation, based on what kind of games are currently selling.

Judging by how the majority of real time with pause CRPGs flop, I'd say it's the other way around now. The only ones that have done really, really well are the D&D based ones. The majority of the others range from flops to mediocre. Of course, real time with pause didn't help IWD2 much, did it?

Hector Syr said:
That is why ToEE is going to sell. It will be the first DnD game that actually follows the rules of the game. Its pretty sad to say thats unique because of all the games that have DnD in their logo. I want something different.

NWN plays like Diablo, which plays like Divine Divinity, which plays like the IE games, which play like Dungeon Siege, which plays like and so forth and so on.

I think this is probably the smartest thing in this thread so far. You can't just keep offering the same thing rehashed to consumers over and over again and expect them to keep lining up for it. One of the best reasons to do something if it's good is that your competition isn't doing it.

Gimble said:
And thus my above comment. If VB hadn't started full-fledged production, and ToEE had come out with incredibly good sales, the turn-based fans within BIS would have ammunition to talk to the bean-counters and say "See? Turn-based games can have great sales!" As it is, there's really no PC-based TB games to use as an argument that the TB combat style can assist in improving sales.

Like Civilization III? Master of Orion 3?

Even PoR2, with all the bad press, managed to sell fairly well.

Gimble said:
Wait... you want something different from other CRPGs, but the same as the PnP product? I find that a little inconsistent.

I find it a little inconsistant that this guy wants something different from the PnP rules in a CRPG that supposedly uses them, but that's just me.

=ColdbringeR= said:
I can name countless logical reasons why i dislike turn-based games. For instance.. What is this magical force that prevents me from moving at the same time as my enemies? As if i'm just going to stand there, frozen in space, while i get surrounded by ten monsters? How stupid is that? If i see a bunch of freaking scorpions moving in on me, i'm going to do something contructive. Unfortunately i usually can't until they are right up on my @ss. Pure stupidity. And then some people have the nerve to call this "control".

That's why you're allowed to move during your turn. If you get surrounded in Fallout, it's because you're not moving. That's logic.

What's sad is he doesn't get this argument can apply to paused situations as well. Or not moving while aiming a bow. Or casting a spell.

DocBeard said:
I'm not sure that I think that turn-based combat is so integral to the Fallout experience that no other system should even be considered. Any more than I think that Van Buren should have only three or four character models, cause that's all that Fallout did.

Except Fallout was designed to emulate PnP style gameplay. That means turn based on a hex grid.

=ColdBringeR= said:
When my character standing there doing nothing while the enemy is doing something, and vice versa, all i see is wasted time. And it's just unrealistic to the point of stupidity at times.

But two guys swatting one another at the same time with swords until one falls down is so much more realistic?

If he wants to see wasted time, he should check out NWN. It's real time, and you only get one swing ever six real time seconds.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
This is really funny, here.

I think I'm Paranoid said:
I'd like to see some concrete examples of TB elements that could not be translated into RT/PT. So far the TB fans keep saying that there are things that would never work, but I have yet to see good examples. Hit me.

Off the top of my head, and using a D&D concept, how about initiative. If you have two guys shooting arrows at one another in D&D, the one with the better initiative gets the first volley. This makes a number of things important, with rules such as surpise, flat footed rules, and so on, which actually models reality better.

You could say you could put a reaction delay in for the ones who lose initiative, but what happens at higher levels when you have gobs of attacks per round? Those attack animations take time. What happens when you have arrows with travel time? What about spells that require a full round to cast? In real time, you're dealing with getting everything mimicked in that six seconds per D&D rules.

In the case of iniitative and arrows, what if the flight time of the arrow excedes that of the delay time? You end up with a divergent case between the mock-initiative and real time combat versus turn based. If both combatants are using lethal arrows, both hit, both die. In turn based, the one that gains the initiative wins. Two mages tossing magic missiles at one another at low level is a prime example of where real time botches the rules there.

Basically, anything involving sequential turn based events can't be done in real time, not without fudging.
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Yup, the funny thing they don't get is that even real time combat is an abstraction of what really happens in combat. Turn based just allows much more than real time because it allows for more intricate models. If you want a super smart AI that takes in lots and lots of possibilities, say like a chess master would, then you can't really do that in real time because everything is going on at the same time. The more complex you allow the combat system to be, the worse and worse that "think time" lag will be. I've always wondered if this wasn't one of the reasons the pathfinding in the Infinity Engine sucked so bad.
 

Rosh

Erudite
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,775
One of the questions I answered in the brief time I did some Q&A stuff at NMA, but haven't had the time to fully set it up. I was thinking of doing that for here, too, along with some other articles. Main factor is trying to find the time.

Anyways...

Why do realtime ai enemys seem so stupid? (Charles D.)<br><br>
<blockquote>
Another big question, and a lot more complex than most think.<br><br>

Turn-Based evaluates all the algorithms required for the enemy's turn in one chunk or in a series of steps. It can either be during a 'paused' time-frame, in which you wait whilst the enemy takes their move (X-Com), or it could be calculated while you make your own move (or if the AI is going for the "bastard" setting, it can make it's own calculations in expectance of your move <i>before</i> you move, though that can be a touch tricky to program with a complex combat setting).<br><br>

sight algorithm (awareness of player or other NPCs)<br>
movement range calculation<br>
equipment/weapon use calculation (targeting based upon AI)<br>
pathfinding algorithm<br>
other misc. heuristics depending upon the game mechanics<br><br>

All this is performed in one time and in a chunk or in steps (best if done in steps, like Move->MostEffectiveAttack->FaceDirection). All algorithms vary depending upon the engine used or the method of combat turn resolution (since RT CRPGs usually run on a timing systems of some sort). In the few seconds alotted for the enemy or NPC turn, some complex AI algorithms can be performed, with no noticable sufferance of the game, and in fact allows for some complex AI due to the fact that you are not fighting the Real-Time AI problems.<br><br>

Since CRPGs do a vast amount of number crunching, and if you've written an AI before with the amount of statistics involved in a CRPG, you know how complex they can be. You can be crunching up to about three hundred times as many factors or more at a time than a typical FPS due to the stat computations, modifiers, spell/trait effects, etc. Now, imagine the most intensive AI algorithm script you can make that takes a while to resolve - but running constantly and in anticipation of on-the-fly user-input. If it's a very complex, involving script, and it runs constantly, you might run into a bit of stutter as the effects try to fight for resources alongside the continually-running AI or the AI itself might be a bit too complex to be run continuously. In theory, a good computer (even including a good graphics card to take off some of the load) might run an impressive RT script. However with the continual advancing demand for more impressive graphics, the push and shove between the effects and the computations of the back-end are still felt on the fly - and will still not be as potentially effective as a Turn-Based AI under the same conditions for these reasons.<br><br>

This can also explain why some Real-Time CRPGs are incredibly simplistic in their AI, whilst some Turn-Based games can be utter bastards. I've rarely seen a good RT script that didn't resort to cheap tricks or simplified gameplay in a sacrifice, and a good example of such would be the insanely poor pathfinding in the Infinity Engine games. It's simply because the TB game doesn't have to vie for resources as much because it's allowed time to do its work. Keep in mind with the same resources, that a TB AI can potentially be <b>far</b> more complex than a RT one, because it can take its time, and can possibly anticipate your moves without nudging elbows with the rendering and other game routines.<br><br>

So, in conclusion, Real-Time in a CRPG is good for a limited attention-span of players, but if you want the best scripting possibility without simplifying things or poor performance, Turn-Based is the way to go.
</blockquote>
 

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
11,478
Location
Behind you.
Yup, when you think about it, what's going on during an enemy turn? Just the calculations for that enemy.

In real time, what's going on? Everything. All the pathfinding for everything moving in or near the battle. All the animations are going including movement, attack animations, spell effects, any environmental changes, etc. Facing for the sprites, what animation frame is next based on what's going on, etc. All the rules checking is going on, including table look ups, dice rolls versus the effects, statistic calculations and modification, and so on. The enemy AI is all executing at the same time, including the AI for the monster which have to pick spells and specials, determine targets, and so on.

It's really no wonder that the spell use seems random, it probably is pretty close to random in real time. The monster has 20 spells, so randomly pick one, pick the target that last did damage, and fling it.

In turn based, since only the calculations for the enemy are being done, the AI has time to thing about what the effects of it's spells are. what targets are available and what they can do. You can make an AI that knows one member of the party is healing the rest of the party, so it can pick something like a sleep spell to stop that healing. It can recognize a hasted warrior and use some counter spell for that effect.
 

Spazmo

Erudite
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
5,752
Location
Monkey Island
The Infinity Engine games usually have scripts for spellcasters. A given AI spellcaster will always cast the same spells. They always start with a certain set of buffs and then a certain set of offensive spells. Figuring out an enemy spellcaster's script is often critical to defeating that enemy in games like BGII.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,256
Location
Chicago. And damn anyone who is not the same.
Like Civilization III? Master of Orion 3?
MOO was bad regardless of TB- they now sell it on Amazon for 20$- with a 20$ rebate. Cannot say it sold, either.
Frankly, its quite unfair to say something as broad as "TB sucks" or "RT sucks". The majority of wargamers thougt that a complex, historically correct game could not be done in TB- but then EU came around and shut them up. Shouldnt this be more on an individual basis? It is really hard to say that anything will sell fantastically well (or not sell at all) because it plays out in turns. It's sort of stupid to say that TB games dont sell, because theres Civilization at the very least, and the opposite is wrong because of Diablow and NWN.
 

Zetor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
1,706
Location
Budapest, Hungary
Actually, the BG2 AI scripts can be nondeterministic. The Smarter Spellcasters component of the Tactics mod is a good example of this: the spellcasters cast different spells every time you encounter them (even if you reload before the fight), often dynamically changing the spellcasting patterns depending on party makeup / current situation / etcetera. (so it's not like the script rolls a d6 to determine which l33t spells it should use this time)

I'm no AI programmer, but I really don't think AI is such a major issue with a proper, fast scripting engine; in Freedom Force, f'rex, even the most complex AI checking for a hundred conditions [including teamwork!] will make a decision in under one millisecond. [OTOH, if you tried something like that in NWN, it's likely the critter would either just stand there dumbfounded or the game'd crash. :P]
Check out some examples of advanced realtime enemy AI here or here.

-- Z.
 

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