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

[Brother None]

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

a) RTwP is not IE-like per definition. His specific problems with Torment's combat are the halfway house between "immediacy" and "true to p&p".

b) McComb isn't in charge of gameplay mechanics, Kevin Saunders is. McComb is the creative lead.

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

I can "fucking handle it", but that doesn't make it a good gameplay experience. Again, if I feel like I'm fighting against rather than with the combat mechanics, that the basic mechanics of the game are an obstruction to my victory, then something is not quite right. Infinity Engine certainly left me feeling that way, even tweaked down to as phasebased-like as possible.

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.

You haven't really explained why it's more complex, but I think at this point I'll just agree to disagree. I don't agree with this basic notion which doesn't give us any leeway to debate.

Like I said, Infinity Engine combat was good enough for me.

*winces*

 

[Infinitron]

Again, if I feel like I'm fighting against rather than with the combat mechanics, that the basic mechanics of the game are an obstruction to my victory, then something is not quite right.

I feel like I know what you're referring to here, but I guess it's just part of the game to me. Bringing order to the chaos that is the real-time battlefield is a challenge. I find it enjoyable.

Obviously, if you prioritize "precise control" over everything else, you won't like that. Again, I'm hoping that the introduction of slow motion controls to CRPGs brings around some turn-based players that weren't willing to consider this type of game in the past.

 

[Grunker]

There are games with slow motion controls already. Hint; it's exactly like real-time with pause except less like turn-based.

 

[Infinitron]

There are games with slow motion controls already.

Are they CRPGs, though?

 

[GordonHalfman]

The simultaneity aspect does bring some benefits. Like a large part of BG2 mage battles was about interrupting the wizard before he could get his first spell off. That often meant things like casting a breach as soon as your true sight takes effect and then getting your rogue in position to backstab just after the breach and kill them before any new protections could go up.

It meant that spells like magic missile, stoneskin and sequencers had tactical value because of the fast casting time and completely broken spells like insect plague could be partially balanced by their long cast and travel time. And you can do things like lure groups of enemies onto AoE traps.

I think managing this kind of stuff is kind of neat and has it's own unique feel, even if its's not a true experience.

 

[Brother None]

There are games with slow motion controls already.

Are they CRPGs, though?

The Witcher 2 and the Game of Thrones game both have slow motion controls. I dunno if you want to call them cRPGs tho.

The simultaneity aspect does bring some benefits.

Yes. Many. But it's not "more", just "different". I'm curious to see if Eternity shows the first true proper implementation of RTwP, because implementations, half-assed interfaces and clashes with underlying mechanics have plagued it so far. Without it, who knows how good RTwP can be.

 

[Infinitron]

The Witcher 2 and the Game of Thrones game both have slow motion controls. I dunno if you want to call them cRPGs tho.

I should have specified "top down party-based/tactical CRPG".

 

[oscar]

So when you add all these features like slow-mo and auto-pause, you've got a fidgety turn-based game with an auto-resolve function?

It's the same shit Sawyer wanted to spring for P:E. 'Fixing' a problem that isn't there to begin with (turn-based not being VISCERAL, IMMERSIVE or CINEMATIC to pull in the ADD generation) and trying to re-invent the wheel instead of using a tried and true system.

Bringing order to the chaos that is the real-time battlefield is a challenge

Then go play Starcraft. There's no shortage of games that cater to the challenge of having to grapple with a real-time battlefield. There is however a critical shortage of these things known as RPGs, which aren't about grappling with the mechanics or the constant progression of time. It's telling that most of non-IE game examples people are using of good RTwP aren't even RPGs.

 

[Brother None]

I should have specified "top down party-based/tactical CRPG".

So...like this? Game of Thrones had a party of up to three under player's control, camera can be moved out pretty freely and up (if not far out), and there's a bevvy of active skills and stances to use! Haha.

Functionally, though, slowdown in both GoT and TW2 acts as a pause, only you're supposed to make your clicks/decisions faster than a full pause would allow. That's pretty damn unimaginative. I have no idea what Eternity plans to do with it. Hopefully something better.

 

[Grunker]

There are games with slow motion controls already.

Are they CRPGs, though?

The Witcher and Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is as much akin to IE as DA is, and while that's not much, it's still enough to showcase what these kind of controls do to the RTwP. And it's not much. It's basically still just RTwP.

Also, I don't think your discussion with oscar is fruitful. Anyone who replies to "I like IE-combat" with "then go play Starcraft" has no intention of dropping the hyperbole, I think.

 

[mondblut]

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.

I didn't notice hexes in command & conquer. Must have been some other command & conquer than you speak of.

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

Both, and many more.

Any problem has near infinite number of solutions, and what's more important, an infinite number of something else to focus on instead, and ignore it. A genre focused on finding one true solution to one inescapable problem is lame. And "but this one has whole 2 solutions, nya!" apologisms are just pathetic.

 

[Infinitron]

So when you add all these features like slow-mo and auto-pause, you've got a fidgety turn-based game with an auto-resolve function?

You have a real-time RPG with battle management tools such as pause and slow motion to help you manage the flow of combat.

Pausing doesn't make the game "temporarily turn-based" or "like a turn-based game" - this is a common fallacy. It's more like the pause between phases in a phased-based game. Unfortunately phased-based combat games aren't common enough so that distinction isn't really part of people's mental lexicon.

It's the same shit Sawyer wanted to spring for P:E. 'Fixing' a problem that isn't there to begin with (turn-based not being VISCERAL, IMMERSIVE or CINEMATIC to pull in the ADD generation) and trying to re-invent the wheel instead of using a tried and true system.

I don't know bro, Age of Decadence looks pretty visceral to me.

Then go play Starcraft. There's no shortage of games that cater to the challenge of having to grapple with a real-time battlefield. There is however a critical shortage of these things known as RPGs, which aren't about grappling with the mechanics or the constant progression of time.

Do you really want to turn this into a "what is an RPG" discussion?

It's telling that most of non-IE game examples people are using of good RTwP aren't even RPGs.

That reminds me of this classic thread: Strategy games are better RPGs than RPGs

 

[oscar]

Also, I don't think your discussion with oscar is fruitful. Anyone who replies to "I like IE-combat" with "then go play Starcraft" has no intention of dropping the hyperbole, I think.

Read the quote I was replying to.

ProTip: It was nothing like "I like IE-combat".

 

[Infinitron]

I should have specified "top down party-based/tactical CRPG".

So...like this? Game of Thrones had a party of up to three under player's control, camera can be moved out pretty freely and up (if not far out), and there's a bevvy of active skills and stances to use! Haha.

Functionally, though, slowdown in both GoT and TW2 acts as a pause, only you're supposed to make your clicks/decisions faster than a full pause would allow. That's pretty damn unimaginative. I have no idea what Eternity plans to do with it. Hopefully something better.

I haven't played GoT, but from what I recall, going into slowmo in Witcher 2 required to you keep a button pressed while you had your quick menu thing open, or when you were about to throw a dagger or bomb.

It's not like the slow motion controls in Myth or Total War which are a mode you switch permanently into, until you switch back out. Not as universally applicable and useful.

 

[St. Toxic]

*Game is not representative of the genre.

I didn't notice hexes in command & conquer. Must have been some other command & conquer than you speak of.

Didn't most wargames use squares? Anyways, you had those, even if they were invisible.

Any problem has near infinite number of solutions, and what's more important, an infinite number of something else to focus on instead, and ignore it.

Does that mean you refuse to play any game with a clear objective and prefer Bethesda sandboxes?

A genre focused on finding one true solution to one inescapable problem is lame.

Yeah, like chess.

 

[Grunker]

I should have specified "top down party-based/tactical CRPG".

So...like this? Game of Thrones had a party of up to three under player's control, camera can be moved out pretty freely and up (if not far out), and there's a bevvy of active skills and stances to use! Haha.

Functionally, though, slowdown in both GoT and TW2 acts as a pause, only you're supposed to make your clicks/decisions faster than a full pause would allow. That's pretty damn unimaginative. I have no idea what Eternity plans to do with it. Hopefully something better.

I haven't played GoT

Top-down party-based RTwP combat with a slow-motion mechanic. You can slow down the game whenever you want to do something.

It's exactly the same as RTwP, except you can't leave your computer for coffee. Exactly the same. And think about Infinitron, come on. Why wouldn't it be? What exactly about slowing down time should be different from stopping it? Your theory is it makes all the pausing more bearable, but it really doesn't. FAST vs. NO time is the almost same as FAST vs. very, very slow time. Except I have to open the menu went I want coffee.

 

[Infinitron]

Top-down party-based RTwP combat with a slow-motion mechanic.

I'll have to check it out...once it's cheap enough on Steam. :jew:

 

[Brother None]

I haven't played GoT, but from what I recall, going into slowmo in Witcher 2 required to you keep a button pressed while you had your quick menu thing open, or when you were about to throw a dagger or bomb.

Yes. It's like the "pause menu" in RTwP games, you "pause" or "slow-down" to make your decisions. Like I said, it's unimaginative and pointless, it works somewhat in TW2 since it's at its core just a RT game so the slow-down is just there to make interface usage less frantic, for GoT it just feels like you're playing Infinity Engine but when you pause someone is shouting in your ear HURRY UP HURRY UP MAKE YOUR DECISION.

(I didn't like GoT, obv)

Doesn't really sound comparable to what Eternity wants to do, assuming "pause" and "slowmo" are separate, symbiotic gameplay modes.

 

[almondblight]

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?

Well, three of those are generally considered to be the best implementation of turn-based. As for Fallout, the only two encounters I remember having trouble with were Kane and Mother Deathclaw, and even then I often used the old staple of eye shots, eye shots, and more eye shots. I'm not sure Van Buren would have been worse.

I never played Myth, Combat Mission, Hearts of Iron, or Freedom Force and thought the game would have been much better TB.

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.

I felt like I do do tight management and strategy just fine in the aforementioned games. You won't see a lot of Combat Mission players complaining about reflex based gameplay.

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).

No, it doesn't do that at all. I've seen that argument made several times, but TB and RT are different, since RT happens simultaneously and TB is, well, turn based. You can try to simulate that with interrupts, but not perfectly and that just becomes...a poor man's real-time.

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.

For the most part, yes. But RTwP isn't inherently so. I doubt, say, Paradox was trying to lure the Doom crowd with HoI.

 

[Grunker]

Top-down party-based RTwP combat with a slow-motion mechanic.

I'll have to check it out...once it's cheap enough on Steam. :jew:

Do you like Dragon Age? If so, you'll love GoT. Roughly DA-gameplay with one of the most well-written video game stories in the last five years, if not the best.

Doesn't really sound comparable to what Eternity wants to do, assuming "pause" and "slowmo" are separate, symbiotic gameplay modes.

How so? Are there other ways of slowing down time that will suddenly and magically transform the slow-motion mode of GoT?

for GoT it just feels like you're playing Infinity Engine but when you pause someone is shouting in your ear HURRY UP HURRY UP MAKE YOUR DECISION.

Pretty accurate.

 

[Infinitron]

Top-down party-based RTwP combat with a slow-motion mechanic.

I'll have to check it out...once it's cheap enough on Steam. :jew:

Do you like Dragon Age? If so, you'll love GoT. Roughly DA-gameplay with one of the most well-written video game stories in the last five years, if not the best.

Yeah, I've seen the KKK threads about it. Something of an underrated game.

 

[oscar]

Unfortunately phased-based combat games aren't common enough so that distinction isn't really part of people's mental lexicon.

Eh wiki says the Battle Isle games were phase-based and I've played Incubation of them. They still seem a lot closer to turn-based than RTwP in that the player's reflexes and the flow of time are not factors in combat success. But please tell me what is the point in having RTwP over turn-based?

You've mentioned simultaneous action, but what is your hard-on for that? Initiative based upon the character's dexterity stat/available action points is more strategic and realistic than "lol my wizard killed your wizard with a fireball because I clicked the fireball icon and then right clicked your wizard faster than you".

That reminds me of this classic thread: Strategy games are better RPGs than RPGs

I enjoy Hearts of Iron and the Total War games. Do I think their system would work well or better than turn-based for an RPG? No.

 

[GordonHalfman]

Initiative more realistic? Really?

 

[Dexter]

They still seem a lot closer to turn-based than RTwP in that the player's reflexes and the flow of time are not factors in combat success. But please tell me what is the point in having RTwP over turn-based?

Because as I said before, some games choose to not let long-winded combat situations be the target/purpose of the game?
Jagged Alliance 2 is arguably one of the games that did it the best with options for prone/crouch/cover and all the different kind of hit-chances depending on where you stand etc., but some of the battle rounds fighting against an encampment could last for half an hour or so for that reason alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ktvwGeoaQ (just one of the first videos I could find, mute the guy)
In some turn-based games that are designed especially badly like some JRPGs these systems can also become a total clusterfuck of repetition and total wank, for instance I remember battle after battle in the likes of Septerra Core near the end going after the same scheme and just becoming pure grind.

Also what the fuck is this argument about "player reflexes", where does that come in when you can pause the entire game at any given point and issue your commands? This isn't exactly Quake III, Counter Strike or Tribes. It just saves players of having to issue every single basic attack/defend/movement command, especially in games featuring parties of 6-8+ characters and having to wait for enemy movement and animations etc. too and cuts to the important bits where you plan to flank/backstab or cast specific spells following your strategy.
Games that focus solely on that aspect are fine and as I said before I like to play the likes of Jagged Alliance, X-Com, even Fallout: Tactics, but I don't think giving a mainly story-focused game like Planescape that is more akin to several Adventure games than your typical RPG "turn based combat" would improve much about it, especially since it never even had the pretense of trying to do that well and if they spent a lot more time designing and creating combat systems and encounters for that part of the game it would take much of the focus away from the main points it was trying to achieve.

It's somewhere along the same choice developers stand before that lets them decide what kind of genre will allow them to implement their vision for a game the best way (and also more likely what will sell best) and some choose TB RPG, ARPG, Adventure or even Semi-RTS. Sanitarium could have likely also worked as an RPG where you get to fight pumpkin-patch monsters and reanimated corpses, but they decided to put the focus entirely on the storytelling. Diablo could've been a storyfag game, but they decided to put the focus on blowing monsters up by clicking on them a lot and then there was also that Warcraft Adventure thing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdZUnQs3D5Y

 

[FeelTheRads]

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

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

You don't make much sense. Hey for me it's great, but let's see if PE can make it not annoying!!!

Also, slow motion too? I don't see how slow motion can make anything but MORE annoying.

And how the hell can RTwP make anything more complex? More challenging I can understand, if you equal challenge with some basic reflexes needed to press space. But more complex? WTF. How exactly?