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

[GordonHalfman]

As a practical example of the "complexity ceiling" imposed by real time consider things like flanking bonuses and attacks of opportunity or similar mechanics.

The biggest things I hate about IE games are:

1) The way the optimal strategy is often to just highlight all your melee guys and attack the same person until he's dead, and then repeat
2) The way the optimal strategy when a guy is injured is to have him run around in circles to keep him alive.

Both of these are symptoms of how there are no real constraints on positioning or movement. But at the same time I'm not convinced it's a good idea to add something like AoO's to a real time game, it's just too annoying to manage when everyone is moving at once.

 

[Grunker]

As a practical example of the "complexity ceiling" imposed by real time consider things like flanking bonuses and attacks of opportunity or similar mechanics.

You realize Project Eternity will have both right?

And yes, I'll bet you one million dollars it will be annoying as fuck to administrate and constantly position your guys at the correct angles - it will be busywork like no other - so I don't necessarily disagree with you. Just sayin' that apparantly your quote isn't a self-evident truth to some.

 

[Infinitron]

it's just too annoying to manage when everyone is moving at once.

With Project Eternity, we'll see if that kind of thing becomes less annoying when slow motion gameplay is available as an option.

 

[scrambles]

Only more complex if you're a Supercomputer AI playing an RPG, and not a human being that has a certain limitation of reflexive and multitasking skill. RTwP is an acceptance that it's shit, otherwise why would games like NWN2 have AI settings for your party if every player could 'handle it'? TB is a more fair and stable system that gives every player the same chance of success if they use patience and think about their next move.

My idea of an RPG is one where your character's stats fight, not one where you fight the game.

 

[hiver]

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

For fuck sake...

Lets design whole core systems and adapt our games to what some imaginary retards might think...


For... fuck.... sake...

It was certainly better than Fallout combat.

Aha - yet it is Turn Based of Fallout that fitted better with a story heavier game. Heavier then many infinity games which mostly were action rpgs... imagine that huh?

 

[scrambles]

it's just too annoying to manage when everyone is moving at once.

With Project Eternity, we'll see if that kind of thing becomes less annoying when slow motion gameplay is available as an option.

But that's just damage control. Pause-toggle, slow-motion, if real-time was so great it wouldn't need band-aids slapped over every problem it has just to be playable.

 

[Grunker]

it's just too annoying to manage when everyone is moving at once.

With Project Eternity, we'll see if that kind of thing becomes less annoying when slow motion gameplay is available as an option.

Slowing down the game constantly to move your guys isn't that much less annoying than pausing. It's doesn't do away with the idiocy of positioning-focused RTwP, it just smoothes it out a bit. It's like introducing a retarded donkey into your game and then dressing it up nicely.

In essence, I agree with scrambles in the case of Project Eternity, but I believe the IE-games are proof that with the correct handling of combat RTwP can be fantastic, especially for games including a shitton of combat. Your main fallacy scrambles is only focusing on TB's strengths and RTwP's weakness, and not recognizing the fact that both systems have strengths and flaws. If you wanted to debunk RTwP you'd need to argue why RTwP's strengths are less relevant than TB's, not ignore its strengths completely.

 

[Infinitron]

My idea of an RPG is one where your character's stats fight, not one where you fight the game.

You call it "fighting the game". I call it "managing a complex situation".

otherwise why would games have AI settings for your party if every player could 'handle it'?

Like I said, it's quite evident that every player can't handle it. But as they get better at the game, players should become less reliant on the AI and more proficient at effective party management (without pause-spamming).

(Of course, the default AI scripts in the Infinity Engine games were quite useless from the beginning, so I suppose you're thinking about NWN2 or Dragon Age)

But that's just damage control. Pause-toggle, slow-motion, if real-time was so great it wouldn't need band-aids slapped over every problem it has just to be playable.

That doesn't mean anything. You can call anything a "band-aid". Pause and slow motion are battle management tools, not band-aids.

You can slow down, speed up and pause the time flow in many sorts of games.

 

[Grunker]

That doesn't mean anything. You can call anything a "band-aid". Pause and slow motion are battle management tools, not band-aids.

the apologetic mindset, it is too strong

Why are they making slow-motion? Because they recognize it is necessary to handle a focus on positioning in a real-time game, because pause-toggle would be hell on earth alone. Why is it band-aid? Because it only smoothes the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.

A "battle management tool" is something you implement to make the game more fun, it's an invention, mechanic or UI-element on its own. Slowing down combat is a band-aid because it's implemented to fix a problem, which it won't do, it will just smooth it out somewhat, at most.

It's just another example of fixing shit that wasn't broken; implementing more positioning rules and then band-aiding in a slow-mo effect to make up for the problems the new rules introduce.

 

[almondblight]

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.

The autopause in the IE games paused most times I needed it. In Hearts of Iron, they handle things by letting you slow the game down a lot. The idea that players are desperately trying to hit their spacebar and missing it while they're characters get chopped up seems a bit odd. You'd have to have pretty awful reflexes for it to be an issue, and even then, there are numerous different mechanics that make it basically a non-issue.

 

[Infinitron]

That doesn't mean anything. You can call anything a "band-aid". Pause and slow motion are battle management tools, not band-aids.

the apologetic mindset, it is too strong

Why are they making slow-motion? Because they recognize it is necessary to handle a focus on positioning in a real-time game, because pause-toggle would be hell on earth alone. Why is it band-aid? Because it only smoothes the problem, it doesn't eliminate it.

A "battle management tool" is something you implement to make the game more fun, it's an invention, mechanic or UI-element on its own. Slowing down combat is a band-aid because it's implemented to fix a problem, which it won't do, it will just smooth it out somewhat, at most.

It's just another example of fixing shit that wasn't broken; implementing more positioning rules and then band-aiding in a slow-mo effect to make up for the problems the new rules introduce.

Okay. I guess that since building a house without using hammers and nails is a real pain in the ass, hammers and nails must be "band aids" and building a house with them is retarded decline.

Do you realize why that's a bad argument now? Some activities require certain tools to use. That doesn't make them flawed. It's just part of what they are.

 

[Captain Shrek]

No infinitron.

RTwP for a party bsed RPG with deep mechanics is like building a house with shit and planning to stay in it.

 

[scrambles]

You call it "fighting the game". I call it "managing a complex situation".

Managing it using reflexive skills, no different than the reflex to quickly "click" to shoot in a FPS. Notice that the actual "thinking" in a RTwP RPG isn't done when the combat is in real-time, but when you pause it and then think about what commands to issue. Seeing that turn-based RPG's are always "paused" during combat, giving no opportunity for the player to substitute "player action" for things inside the game's rule system which have been statted. So the weakness of the entire system is the real-time part, the only thing that saves it is the ability to (temporary) make it not real-time (pause it).

Like I said, it's quite evident that every player can't handle it. But as they get better at the game, players should become less reliant on the AI and more proficient at effective party management (without pause-spamming).

Again, no different than the learning curve of a FPS as the player's reflexes adjust, doesn't make it any more RPG-like.

That doesn't mean anything. You can call anything a "band-aid". Pause and slow motion are battle management tools, not band-aids.

You can slow down, speed up and pause the time flow in many sorts of games.

It's a band-aid because it doesn't add anything to the combat, it just attempts to remedy an existing problem in the combat. Real-time = makes combat unmanageable, Pause = makes it slightly more manageable. It's a solution to a problem the designer of the game created.

 

[Roguey]

Slowing down the game constantly to move your guys isn't that much less annoying than pausing. It's doesn't do away with the idiocy of positioning-focused RTwP, it just smoothes it out a bit. It's like introducing a retarded donkey into your game and then dressing it up nicely.

Are you still pretending that the IE games didn't have position-dependent backstabbing?

 

[Infinitron]

Real-time = makes combat unmanageable

Again, unmanageable for you. More complex and challenging for me.

I accept a certain a minimal requirement of "reflexes" as the price for that.

Seriously, if you think slow-paced RTwP combat is as twitchy as an FPS then I really don't know what to say.

 

[Roguey]

By the way I find it interesting that McComb doesn't even like IE gameplay, yet he wants to make another one like them.

http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=55

Colin McComb: I was not especially thrilled with the way combat felt in the Infinity Engine, but I write this off to my predilection for the immediate rush of first-person shooters, and the fact that the AD&D rules are in themselves a shorthand for that immediacy as well. I have always felt that the biggest problem with tabletop gaming is the pure nitpickery of slogging through combat; entire sessions have been wasted on a single battle. Computer gaming should, in theory, create a seamless flow, allowing action to occur naturally and fluidly. I suppose the Infinity Engine was the closest one could get to such fluid action while still retaining at least the outline of the basic AD&D rules. Essentially, I’m torn between the desire to immerse the player in a combat situation and the desire to make sure even slow-twitchers get something out of a game.

Numenera: Torment should be an action rpg.

 

[GordonHalfman]

I hope PE doesn't literally try to implement AoO's. It's just too obviously a mechanic designed for a system that lets you think carefully about each move. It's was rage inducing in NWN 2 when say you go to select your wizard and mis-click slightly prompting your rogue to run over to him trigger and AoO avalanche on the way. Or your attacking some dude who runs off for some reason causing your guy to run after him past a group of enemies. Not to mention accommodating AoO's in an animation cycle is a finicky problem for the developer.

There might be a better solution that works in RtwP. Maybe something like just giving a bonus when attacking a target that's moving away from you, or perhaps a chance to trip them. Something that discourages the headless chicken thing without adding to the chaos.

 

[Grunker]

Slowing down the game constantly to move your guys isn't that much less annoying than pausing. It's doesn't do away with the idiocy of positioning-focused RTwP, it just smoothes it out a bit. It's like introducing a retarded donkey into your game and then dressing it up nicely.

Are you still pretending that the IE games didn't have position-dependent backstabbing?

To think I stood up for you when you where the target of too many strawmen. When have I said the IE games didn't? What I have said, however, if you were able to get it through your thick skull, is that that was one extremely small (and, indeed, shitty) part of the IE-games which was easily avoidable and that you didn't have to use that much. AoO's and flanking is for EVERY. SINGLE. CHARACTER no matter what you play. You will always have to deal with this system and you will have to deal with it often. Very often.

AoOs were annoying in NWN2 where they weren't even that meaningful.

It's was rage inducing in NWN 2 when say you go to select your wizard and mis-click slightly prompting your rogue to run over to him trigger and AoO avalanche on the way. Or your attacking some dude who runs off for some reason causing your guy to run after him past a group of enemies. Not to mention accommodating AoO's in an animation cycle is a finicky problem for the developer.

Bingo.

I hope PE doesn't literally try to implement AoO's.

What you hope isn't exactly relevant. They will, it's confirmed.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/323119

opportunity attacks and flanking are definitely in

 

[Captain Shrek]

Real-time = makes combat unmanageable

Again, unmanageable for you. More complex and challenging for me.

I accept a certain a minimal requirement of "reflexes" as the price for that.

Seriously, if you think slow-paced RTwP combat is as twitchy as an FPS then I really don't know what to say.

Look there is nothing wrong about enjoying this. You actually might end up liking MMO RPGs too. They have this Real time without pause combat with a lot of reflex requiring combat. Just try some out.

 

[St. Toxic]

It doesn't have anything to do with wargaming, however.

Dice-rolling? Exactly.

Consult wikipedia to discover what a "wargame" is. Hint: it's that thing Gygax was playing when it occured to him, "gee, what if we turn back from this set-piece battle and look for a town instead?"

Towns were pretty common in wargames though. Not so with dynamic character systems, simulation of random elements was added in late, change of equipment was uncommon, and naturally you were playing with armies -- so Command & Conquer is a decent wargame series. Men of War is actually closer to a crpg than most wargames get. Overall, the genre is strategy games, not rpg's and especially not crpg's.

Having more than 1 way to solve retarded puzzles is a good start, but a long shot from having no retarded puzzles to begin with

But what is a retarded puzzle? Saying the right thing to the right npc? Equipping the right piece of equipment at the right time?

 

[Grunker]

Real-time = makes combat unmanageable

Again, unmanageable for you. More complex and challenging for me.

I accept a certain a minimal requirement of "reflexes" as the price for that.

Seriously, if you think slow-paced RTwP combat is as twitchy as an FPS then I really don't know what to say.

Look there is nothing wrong about enjoying this. You actually might end up liking MMO RPGs too. They have this Real time without pause combat with a lot of reflex requiring combat. Just try some out.

Don't compare the fucking IE-games to an MMO Shrek. You're just being derpy. Even the comparison between DA:O and MMO's is pretty far out, and makes it clear you've played little of either. DA:O and an MMO might look like each, but they play nothing like each other.

 

[oscar]

You'd have to have pretty awful reflexes for it to be an issue

I had no problem beating Hotline Miami or playing FPS or RTS games, but it's still less than optimum for an RPG to invoke player reflexes at all and I can't think of a single RPG that has benefited from real-time (beyond the very minor benefit of faster trash mob clearing, which is a fault of poorly designed games rather than turn-based itself) while I can think of many that suffered due to it. Would Fallout 1, Jagged Alliance, ToEE or Knights of the Chalice have benefited from being RTwP?

It's simply a perplexing system to use that doesn't fit with the tight management and strategising of an RPG. In an RPG, I like to be in control, not leaving things up to the AI and having to constantly be prepared to slam the pause bar. The commonly used alternative is to have lots of auto-pauses set up, but again this just turns the game into a poor man's turn-based in exchange for faster victory over weak opponents (where even a dumb AI can triumph).

RTwP is a cheap attempt of RPG developers to lure in non-RPG fans by giving the game the feel and appearance of an action one.

 

[Grunker]

Don't compare the fucking IE-games to an MMO Shrek. You're just being derpy. Even the comparison between DA:O and MMO's are pretty absurd, and makes it clear you've played little of either. DA:O and an MMO might look like each, but they play nothing like each other.

Grunker dude. WHere did I compare IE games to MMORPGs? All I said was that MMORPGs require a lot of reflex based real time combat. Is this not true?

You quoted scrambles saying real time made combat unmanageable and Infinitron's reply to that, suggesting you thought that RTwP almost= MMO.

 

[Captain Shrek]

You quoted scrambles saying real time made combat unmanageable and Infinitron's reply to that, suggesting you thought that RTwP almost= MMO.

And did you read what I quoted?

 

[Grunker]

You quoted scrambles saying real time made combat unmanageable and Infinitron's reply to that, suggesting you thought that RTwP almost= MMO.

And did you read what I quoted?

Yes, but Infinitron was commenting on scrambles, so your comment didn't make much sense unless it was in relation to scrambles' statement