Interview inXile's Torment successor officially announced on RPS, will use Monte Cook's Numenera setting

[oscar]

I don't get these complaints about long-winded turn-based. Is your sole experience Final Fantasy VII, with Sephiroth attack cutscenes of him destroying the universe or something?

 

[scrambles]

Rome Total War works because you've got all the time and the world to sit back and relax as your legionaries hack away at Celts (pausing now and then to shuffle some units around and order movement). You don't have that luxury in RPGs where combat is often short and deadly and what round you cast a spell or use a feat in is of vital importance. Losing three seconds where a rouge uncloaks itself and starts stabbing up your wizard because you were busy watching your barbarian chop up those orcs is unacceptable and forces you to constantly be in the RTS 'zone' of constant awareness and prepared reflex.

While I can see the fun in playing your friend in an RTS or the appeal of games like League of Legend, when I play an RPG I want to plan and strategise not have the game at all dependent on my reflexes.

There is no getting around the fact that RTwP invokes the player's reflexes as a part of combat unless it's set up to frequently auto-pause, in which case you simply get a poor man's turn-based.

Well, some degree of dependence on reflexes is an inherent trade-off you make in exchange for the more sophisticated combat scenarios you get when you have full simultaneous control of the battlefield. Slow motion and pause reduce it to acceptable levels.

In my opinion, it's a worthwhile and valid trade-off. The main advantage of TB I think is that it's probably easier to implement good AI for, but I'm not sure how often that happens in practice.

That's just theory though, the practical reality is that no isometric RPG's with RTwP combat have ever had good combat that was manageable in a non-stressful way that didn't reward the reflexes of the player over the brain of the player. I can't even remember the amount of fights in IWD I had when I just thought "fuck it" and let my party fight by itself like an RTS because I couldn't be bothered continually pausing.

It's not fun.

 

[Infinitron]

It's not fun.

What can I say? It was for me. Different strokes.

My problem is with the idea that RTwP is inherently dumbed down compared to TB. It's okay if you just don't like it.

 

[Brother None]

But you said yourself there is some inherent degree of dependence on reflexes. Depending on reflexes = dumbing down, "all other things being equal". It may only be a minor dumbing down, and no doubt you can still make a very tactical system with RTwP just as you can make a very simple system with TB, but if we're talking about the general rather than the precise, then how is saying it inherently depends on reflexes different from saying it's inherently dumbed down?

Depending on how you define dumbed down, of course.

 

[Surf Solar]

Lastly, Final Fantasy X is a great example of a turn based game being good and selling very well. There was insane amount of random combat in the game, yet ppl still loved it and did not get tired of combat.

o_O

You've got to be trolling here.

jrpg faggotry aside, the combat was great IMO.

 

[Infinitron]

But you said yourself there is some inherent degree of dependence on reflexes. Depending on reflexes = dumbing down. It may only be a minor dumbing down, and no doubt you can still make a very tactical system with RTwP just as you can make a very simple system with TB, but if we're talking about the general rather than the precise, then how is saying it inherently depends on reflexes different from saying it's inherently dumbed down?

Depending on how you define dumbed down, of course.

I said it's a trade-off. In exchange for a bit of reflex-dependence, you get more options. Yes, more options.

If you can control any of your characters at any point in time, doing things simultaneously without being restricted to a sequence of turns, the possibility space of the battlefield is exponentially larger. It's just more complex.

 

[Captain Shrek]

That's the common stereotype that TB fanatics have about RTwP players, yes. That the only reason they like RTwP is that it's "faster" and more "visceral" and "action-like".

True.

But that's false. The main advantage of RTwP is that the action is simultaneous, and that you always have complete control over your characters. Other than that, I would prefer it to be as slow-paced as possible. That's why I'm so excited about the slow motion options that will be implemented in Project Eternity.

Oh? Why is simultaneous action an advantage? Your examples are where the RTwP is good should have blown your argument straight away. They are all different genres.

Simultaneous action is good for genres which are shallow in terms of actual active abilities but good for positioning i.e. strategic COMPUTER games and also only the combat parts of such games. RT is only good if the player does not have to control a lot of characters with a lot of abilities at the same time. Otherwise the hassle that was NWN2 occurs.

IE games being RTwP was NOT optimal for them btw. Stop using stupid associations. IE games did many things right, RTwP only came between these good things and your fun. The rules used to create the combat system were taken from a TB game which made a lot of them awkward in a RT setting. Which is why IE also had ROUNDS. PE won't have that. Games like PE are Lionheart, Diablo, Divinity etc, not IE games.

 

[Brother None]

If you can control any of your characters at any point in time, doing things simultaneously without being restricted to a sequence of turns, the possibility space of the battlefield is exponentially larger. It's just more complex.

That doesn't make sense. Simultaneous versus sequential action is different, it's not more complex, it doesn't *just* add options, unless you'd like to argue that chess where players have to move their pieces simultaneously is "more complex". In realtime, I can control any of my characters at any time and do things simultaneously, but I can't "switch back" to sequential action and tactical pre-calculating moves, I am now restricted by simultaneous movement, not to mention that is asynchronous depending on what kind of commands I give. It adds something and takes something away, changing the nature of the battle and requiring a different approach. That's the tradeoff. Adding in reflexes comes on top of that tradeoff, and that's where it dumbs down.

Besides, it's not like you can't design phasebased systems where action is essentially simultaneous but planning happens in turn stages. The distinction isn't that absolute.

And yeah, as Captain Shrek said, I don't mind RT or RTwP but if I have full party control the reality is TB is inherently superior in level of control and the chaotic nature of management. That doesn't mean it's not a matter of preference, but designers do have to keep that tradeoff in mind when designing, and if your goal is tactical, precise combat and a good level of individual character control, there's just no way you can go with RTwP. Though Eternity's attempt at it will be interesting to watch.

Nothing wrong with liking RTwP, like away, but argue for it on its own strengths. It seems a bit silly to try to defend it on the basis of what TB does best, because each system has unique strengths and weaknesses, and trying to judge one by a different one's standards is a rather counter-productive moving of the goalposts. Let TB do what TB does best, and RTwP can do what RTwP does best.

 

[Infinitron]

That doesn't make sense. Simultaneous versus sequential action is different, it's not more complex, it doesn't *just* add options, unless you'd like to argue that chess where players have to move their pieces simultaneously is "more complex".

Actually, yes, it would be more complex. Of course, the rules of chess don't apply to real time so the game would lose all coherency. Again, you can't convert a TB game to RTwP without ruining it to some extent. It needs to be built for real time from the ground up. Although I do think D&D was flexible enough to be converted to real time without causing too much damage.

In realtime, I can control any of my character at any time and do things simultaneously, but I can't "switch back" to sequential action and tactical pre-calculating moves, I am now restricted by simultaneous movement, not to mention that is asynchronous depending on what kind of commands I give. It adds something and takes something away, changing the nature of the battle and requiring a different approach. That's the tradeoff.

Trade-off of what? I'm talking about a trade-off of "dumbing down". What you're describing is an entirely different trade-off.

Besides, it's not like you can't design phasebased systems where action is essentially simultaneous but planning happens in turn stages. The distinction isn't that absolute.

Indeed. If you set up the Infinity Engine to globally pause every N seconds in combat, it would become phase-based.

BTW have you ever played Frozen Synapse?

And yeah, as Captain Shrek said, I don't mind RT or RTwP but if I have full party control the reality is TB is inherently superior in level of control and the chaotic nature of management.

Yes, TB is easier to control than RTwP. And space sims are easier to control than flight sims because there's no gravity. Doesn't invalidate the latter.

Nothing wrong with liking RTwP, like away, but argue for it on its own strengths, it's a bit silly to try to defend it on the basis of what TB does best. Let TB do what TB does best, and RTwP can do what RTwP does best.

Indeed. I don't see where I defended RTwP on the basis of what TB does best.

 

[EG]

A crpg diluted with "adventure games" is a diluted crpg.

How? The only thing missing, to turn an adventure game into an RPG, is character progression and a rule system to handle interaction with the environment and NPCs.

You forgot the freedom of action, which is something "adventure games" cannot into by design and which is the watershed separating an RPG from a wargame.

Yeah, that's what adventure games lack.

 

[Brother None]

Trade-off of what? I'm talking about a trade-off of "dumbing down". What you're describing is an entirely different trade-off.

Yes, because what you're describing doesn't mesh with reality. You seem to think that things moving simultaneously is inherently more complex than things moving sequentially, but this is simply not true in a gaming environment. It mght be if human brains could process information at much higher speeds, but they can not. The whole basis of the tradeoff you're presenting is false. RTwP doesn't just add options and complexity, it replaces one notion with another, hence why "that is the trade-off": the tradeoff is for tactical sequential thinking for tactical simultaneous thinking. The need for reflexes comes on top of that tradeoff and creates the "dumbing down", it's not part of it.

Indeed. If you set up the Infinity Engine to globally pause every N seconds in combat, it would become phase-based.

Except it's not designed to be phase-based from the ground up, which makes good reads of how actions are performed asynchronously (unless all actions take one turn) difficult and messy. It's that messiness and struggling against mechanics rather than having mechanics on my side against the opponent than made Infinity Engine so unplayable to me.

RTwP at the end of the day stems from "best of both worlds" thinking, and like all "best of both worlds" design, it tends to actually give us the worst of both worlds. With a proper focus on the core mechanics of RTwP and combat no doubt the system could be vastly improved, but it's not generally implemented like that, because RPG designers don't have that much time/energy to spend on combat itself.

BTW have you ever played Frozen Synapse?

Yeah. Didn't like it. I know I'm supposed to like it, but I didn't. It felt more random than tactical to me. Tradeoff of sequential versus simultaneous.

Yes, TB is easier to control than RTwP. And space sims are easier to control than flight sims because there's no gravity. Doesn't invalidate the latter.

Who is invalidating anything? I said it's an option, it's just a part of the decision-making process for designers, and if they lean heavily to providing a tactical experience, TB quickly comes to the fore. Not just because it allows "easier controls", which you easily pass over but which actually means "more precise control" AKA "better tactical opportunities", but because it's better, not for AI, but for players, thanks to the reflex factor and the more precise level of information/more precise control. RTwP is always an option if you think the balance works better for your game, particularly if combat needs to be faster and more immediate, but as a designer you can't just ignore that tradeoff and pretend RTwP is somehow TB's equal when it comes to tactical notions in party-based RPGs.

 

[scrambles]

Again, you can't convert a TB game to RTwP without ruining it to some extent.

Aren't you arguing that the Torment successor should be RTwP? Numenera is a turn-based ruleset.

 

[Aeschylus]

Again, you can't convert a TB game to RTwP without ruining it to some extent.

Aren't you arguing that the Torment successor should be RTwP? Numenera is a turn-based ruleset.

All P&P is inherently turn-based. That is not a relevant point.

 

[Brother None]

Again, you can't convert a TB game to RTwP without ruining it to some extent.

Aren't you arguing that the Torment successor should be RTwP? Numenera is a turn-based ruleset.

Yeah, but Numenera isn't being adapted to PC as Infinity Engine adapted p&p to PC: Baldur's Gate stuck as close as it could to the rules and was built as a TB game with RTwP running on top of it. RTwP is currently the leading option for Numenera and if they do decide to go with it they're not strictly bound by the p&p rulebase to make a TB system running underneath, they can tweak the rules while using the same principles to have it run properly as a RTwP system. Build it from the ground up, more or less, like Eternity is doing.

 

[scrambles]

Again, you can't convert a TB game to RTwP without ruining it to some extent.

Aren't you arguing that the Torment successor should be RTwP? Numenera is a turn-based ruleset.

All P&P is inherently turn-based. That is not a relevant point.

Thanks for the update

 

[oscar]

Weird that the staff member of a site dedicated to old school and uncompromising RPGs doesn't even really like turn based

 

[Brother None]

Infinitron is a representative of the New Shit direction of the Codex. Innovatively adapting to exciting new opportunities and reinventing oneself in bold new ways. A "re-imagining" of the original, if you will.

 

[oscar]

Someone needs to incline obsolete chess by making gameplay simultaneous and real-time. Stop to have a think about where you're moving that pawn? Too slow bro, the opponent just nabbed your bishop and put you in check-mate. Guess you should have had your finger on the pause button.

 

[Infinitron]

Yes, because what you're describing doesn't mesh with reality. You seem to think that things moving simultaneously is inherently more complex than things moving sequentially, but this is simply not true in a gaming environment.

I disagree. Larger possibility space --> more things the player needs to be in control of --> greater complexity, by definition.

Maybe you have some different definition of "complexity" in mind here.

RTwP doesn't just add options and complexity, it replaces one notion with another, hence why "that is the trade-off", the tradeoff is for tactical sequential thinking for tactical simultaneous thinking. The need for reflexes comes on top of that tradeoff, it's not part of it.

No, there are two different tradeoffs here.

One is the "tradeoff" in basic user functionality that you described - sacrificing sequential gameplay for simultaneous gameplay. This is a tradeoff of preference.

The other is the tradeoff in the amount of tactical control and complexity that you have - sacrificing a greater degree of control and lesser reliance on reflexes in exchange for a more complex battlefield. That's a tradeoff of different types of combat complexity.

Except it's not designed to be phase-based from the ground up, which makes good reads of how actions are performed asynchronously (unless all actions take one turn) difficult and messy.

True.

RTwP at the end of the day stems from "best of both worlds" thinking, and like all "best of both worlds" design, it tends to actually give us the worst of both worlds.

I disagree with this as a categorical statement. It's another of the common TB fanatic canards. RTwP is its own discipline, it's not some "evil twisted mutant hybrid" of TB and RT.

Of course, specific implementations of RTwP may have been motivated by this type of "best of both worlds" thought.

With a proper focus on the core mechanics of RTwP and combat no doubt the system could be vastly improved, but it's not generally implemented like that, because RPG designers don't have that much time/energy to spend on combat itself.

Possibly. Infinity Engine combat was good enough for me, though.

if they lean heavily to providing a tactical experience, TB quickly comes to the fore. Not just because it allows "easier controls", which you easily pass over but which actually means "more precise control" AKA "better tactical opportunities", but because it's better, not for AI, but for players, thanks to the reflex factor and the more precise level of information/more precise control.

"Tactical experience" of what, Brother None? What if I want to have a "tactical experience" within a more complex battlefield than what a TB game can give me?

Turn-based systems give you more precise control, but control over what? A gimped battlefield that restricts you.

 

[Infinitron]

Weird that the staff member of a site dedicated to old school and uncompromising RPGs doesn't even really like turn based

I like turn-based games just fine. I just don't think turn-based systems are better than real-time systems as a rule.

 

[EG]

Someone needs to incline obsolete chess by making gameplay simultaneous and real-time. Stop to have a think about where you're moving that pawn? Too slow bro, the opponent just nabbed your bishop and put you in check-mate. Guess you should have had your finger on the pause button.

The weird thing is . . . I want to play this realtime chess.

 

[Infinitron]

Let me just add that nothing in this argument is in any way relevant to inXile's Torment successor. It likely won't be a combat-focused game with complex tactical scenarios, so I don't think it matters much whether it will be RTwP or TB.

The only reason I think it should be made RTwP is to avoid alienating some of the more retarded potential backers.

 

[Brother None]

I disagree. Larger possibility space --> more things the player needs to be in control of --> greater complexity, by definition.

But the player isn't in control of more things. Your options are limited to commands for characters. In real-time you have to take account of enemies moving as you do (as in phasebased), in turnbased you have to think about enemies moving after you. You don't have the option to hide while the enemy moves in turnbased, but that doesn't decrease your possibility space, it just means you have to think about this at another stage of combat. You seem to feel that not being able to do anything for a while inherently reduces complexity, but that doesn't really work for me, because all it does is shift when your opportunities for input exist, not how much input you have, that remains that same. That requires a different level of thinking, not a less complex one. You are confusing opportunity with possibility, but they're different things, a matter of "when" versus "how much".

Beside, it's not like your "do anything any time" rule actually exists for RTwP. If my character is in the middle of an action, he still has to finish it before he can obey my next command.

This appears to be the entire crux of your philosophy, since you repeated it a few times. I don't see it, I think you're confusing being different with being more complex and completely ignoring the limitations of the human brain, hence I don't think any of your conclusions drawn on this basis are correct.

Limitations of humans are so important. Run by computers, I don't doubt you could fashion RT systems as complex as TB systems. Run by humans, we simply can not give the same level of reasoned tactical input in things happening simultaneously as we can in things happening sequentially. That's why all "intellectual" games (in real life) are turn-based. That's why RTwP feels so messy. Sequential design, meanwhile, isn't inherently less tactical, it's just inherently less realistic, for those interested in that tradeoff.

I disagree with this as a categorical statement. It's another of the common TB fanatic canards. RTwP is its own discipline, it's not some "evil twisted mutant hybrid" of TB and RT.

Of course, specific implementations of RTwP may have been motivated by this type of "best of both worlds" thought.

Not specific implementations, the very reason it exist. It started as a best of both worlds philosophy. If you are hoping it becomes more some day, fine, but it hasn't yet. If it had, you'd have been able to cite an RPG as a positive example, but very tellingly you were only able to cite strategy games.

You're not exactly making a great case for RTwP being respect as is, right now.

Possibly. Infinity Engine combat was good enough for me, though.

Ugh. It's "good enough" in the same way Fallout combat is "good enough", as in I can bear it, but I don't exactly play the game for it (at least Fallout had its peripheral combat frills). I'd certainly hope Eternity and WL2 do better.

Let me just add that nothing in this argument is in any way relevant to inXile's Torment successor. It likely won't be a combat-focused game with complex tactical scenarios, so I don't think it matters much whether it will be RTwP or TB.

The only reason I think it should be made RTwP is to avoid alienating some of the more retarded potential backers.

Doomed I tells you. Doooomed!
Making it RTwP because of potential backers is no different than making a game RT because it sells better. We're in Kickstarter to avoid that horseshit, not to run with it.

 

[oscar]

Infinity Engine combat would have been great if not for RTwP. How many times a character died because my attention was elsewhere and something sneaked up and took out my squishy mage in about three seconds while I was managing elsewhere.

I dislike RTwP in my RPGs for the same reason I dislike QTE's in my RPGs. The player's reflexes should be utterly irrelevant to whether you win or lose a fight. Reflexes are an integral part of RTwP no matter how you fine-tune it.

Let's consider a situation: An ogre is charging across the screen at your wizard who is out of mana and quaffing a potion. Your warrior is currently happily swinging away at the last puny goblin, which will soon die but isn't really much of a threat.

The turn-based situation is obvious: You pull your warrior back to intercept the ogre (whose movement points only allow it to get halfway to the wizard) and move the wizard safely away from the ogre (but still close enough to throw a lightning bolt if needed)

But in RTwP: The ogre closes the gap to your wizard who happily stands still quaffing his potion and twiddling his thumbs while the player's attention is on the warrior. The wizard gets one-shotted by the ogre's club and as the player you only realise when the message 'Thorviald the Wizard takes 184 damage and dies' sounds.

A situation that would be simple for anyone with a brain to avert in turn-based (move the wizard back, get the warrior to ignore the goblin and deal with the ogre) becomes stupidly lethal in RTwP because the player's attention and management can not be fully be in two places at once.

 

[Infinitron]

This appears to be the entire crux of your philosophy, since you repeated it a few times. I don't see it, I think you're confusing being different with being more complex and completely ignoring the limitations of the human brain, hence I don't think any of your conclusions drawn on this basis are correct.

Limitations of humans are so important. Run by computers, I don't doubt you could fashion RT systems as complex as TB systems. Run by humans, we simply can not give the same level of reasoned tactical input in things happening simultaneously as we can in things happening sequentially. That's why all "intellectual" games (in real life) are turn-based. That's why RTwP feels so messy.

What can I say? It's not too messy for me. I can fucking handle it. Maybe other people can't.

Sequential design, meanwhile, isn't inherently less tactical, it's just inherently less realistic, for those interested in that tradeoff.

I didn't say it was less tactical. I said it's less complex. It offers a less complex battlefield in which to be tactical.

Not specific implementations, the very reason it exist. It started as a best of both worlds philosophy.

You might be right. However, do you have a source for that? Was the RTwP in Darklands motivated by a "best of both worlds" philosophy?

If you are hoping it becomes more some day, fine, but it hasn't yet. If it had, you'd have been able to cite an RPG as a positive example, but very tellingly you were only able to cite strategy games.

You're not exactly making a great case for RTwP being respect as is, right now.

Like I said, Infinity Engine combat was good enough for me. Good enough to be "respected".

Ugh. It's "good enough" in the same way Fallout combat is "good enough", as in I can bear it, but I don't exactly play the game for it (at least Fallout had its peripheral combat frills). I'd certainly hope Eternity and WL2 do better.

It was certainly better than Fallout combat.

Making it RTwP because of potential backers is no different than making a game RT because it sells better. We're in Kickstarter to avoid that horseshit, not to run with it.

It's true that Kickstarter has a looser set of marketplace restrictions than the AAA sphere, but it still has restrictions.

Yeah, everything is shit.