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.

Preview JA3D prefun at Hooked Gamers

Saint_Proverbius

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2002
Messages
14,058
Location
Behind you.
Tags: Jagged Alliance 3D

<a href="http://www.hookedgamers.com/">Hooked Gamers</a> has a <A href="http://www.hookedgamers.com/previews/2006/1/jagged_alliance_3d/">preview</a> of <a href="http://www.strategyfirst.com/games/GameInfo.asp?sLanguageCode=EN&iGameID=126&sSection=Overview">Jagged Alliance 3D</a>. Here's a nifty cool bit on the game, which sounds peachy to me:
<br>
<blockquote>An interesting twist to the main plot is that it's possible to switch sides. There are four main factions in the game and a number of smaller ones. Each has their own agenda but... so do you this time around. At this time, it's unspecified when and how you can switch sides, but apparently the player will have to the ability to do so, depending on choices made earlier in the game. Besides the former government and the revolutionaries, there's mention of a UN contingent, roving bands and ticked-off farmers wanting their land back so that they can go back to their former lives.</blockquote>
<br>
FLIP FLOP!
<br>
<br>
Thanks, <b>Falconer</b>!
 

Deacdo

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
585
I don't think they got very many facts right about JA3D in this preview. It's loaded with old, outdated info that was changed many months ago.

Never heard of the site, and after reading that preview, it's no wonder. :?
 

Sisay

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
122
Location
Soviet Finland
I bet it's going to end up just like in Deus Ex: Invisible War. It doesn't matter what you do because you can always switch sides at the end of the game. Well that's assuming JA3D gets released at all and the developers don't continue RT/Tb type of flip flops they did earlier. Or was that the other JA3? I'm having trouble following all those SFI's attempts on cashing in with the name.
 

RiK

Novice
Joined
Jun 21, 2004
Messages
21
!HyPeRbOy! said:
So.. where to go for accurate info on the future of the JA franchise? Any fanpage out there with knowledgeable people perhaps?

The Bear's Pit:
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/

It seems the developers are abandoning turn-based gameplay and implementing the "smart-pause".

Another great franchise killed....
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
Nae, not exactly.
If you may look at Brigate E5 thread there, you may notice that people also were suspcious of it, but now, after seeing it, loose quote:
"If RTwP in Ja3D would be half as good as in Brigade E5, it's not that bad".
TB is not some sort of 'holy cow'. It has it's flaws and merits.
Smart Pause also has it's flaws and merits - and, I'm inclined to think - more merits then flaws, and more merits then TB, surely.
Of course, VD seem to disagree - but he already slipped that he likes TB because it's TB, not just because of extra controlability and stuff. ;)
Properly done RTwP (as in SPM) - is free from most TB flaws, yet it have same controlability, even moreso in some cases.
Well, Mistland may indeed kill Ja franchise - but it would be due to general crappiness of the game, not whether it would be TB or RTwP.
On the other hand, since it's a traditional to have TB in Ja games - it would be safer to stay with TB, though.
Just to please 'hardcore old-time fans'.
Nothing to do wither 'RTwP' is 'worse' or 'better' then TB, however.
 

Deacdo

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
585
Being "not that bad" still isn't anywhere near as good as JA2 :?

Anyway, JA3D is still turn-based. A recent interview with the developers states it as so, and this preview isn't hands-on. They're just confusing old JA3D info and African Alliance.

Not that it really matters. MiST is one of the worst developers around. They'll find away to screw it up (using the apparently crappy ALFA engine is a start).
 

Sisay

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
122
Location
Soviet Finland
Balor, I'm pretty sure you're one of the very few if not the only one here who thinks RTwP is better than TB. You sound exactly like all those fucking morons who came here after the RT=>TB change of JA3. The Codex is not a hive mind but damn it's surprising to hear anyone saying that here.
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
Question is, we never seen PROPERLY done RTwP games... pretty much until recently, when Brigade E5 was released.
Of course, it's SPM is not perfect - but so is TB. You may try and read the Brigade E5 thread - I've stated it a lot of times already, also it includes replies from devs.
Anyway, I don't love TB because it's TB. I like it, I really do - because it allow great control over situation, and involved tactics with lots and lots of options.
RT do not allow it (Or, your reflexes do not allow to control a few characters that are supposed to be trained and much faster to react then you). RTwP is better, but still, if you miss slamming space bar in the right moment - finita la comedia, your character would be eaten alive, while standing still and starting at the enemy.
SPM turns allow essentially RT mechanics (with all it’s realism and complexity) be combined with TB intricacies of tactics.

So, SPM = TB controllability + RT realism.
That's more then enough for me.
I understand that 'abstracted' nature of TB may is separate gameplay element that may be liked by some, but I never got it, myself.
I prefer to plain my actions to prevent realistic threats, not threats borne of artificialness of TB mechanics, like:

You peek from the corner, interrupt, some guy unloads two SMG bursts into you, reload.
You spend your APs running to some door, next turn - an enemy comes from that door, and, yep, unloads two bursts into you, while you are fucking frozen in time and cannot do anything!

Yea, it can be considered extra challenges - but I consider it fucking flaws, and no one will ever persuade me otherwise.
In Brigade enemies can also 'cover' doors to shoot at people that appear from them, for instance, REALLY fast - but that's logical and realistic.
Above examples with TB - aren't.
Yea, not everyone like realism. But some - do. Like me. And other people, who also love Brigade E5.
And, please note:
Whether you love realism or not: it's subjective.
But the realism itself is ABSOLUTE.
Oh, and btw, it’s not really realism in strict sense.
It’s fucking logic and internal consistency! If I liked things illogical, I’d be in the church right now, praying for ‘insert deity name here’, but sorry, no way.

Also, realism allow great deal of very interesting, gameplay-wise, things to happen - I've stated some in E5 thread.
So, before you say that TB is better then SPM, please explain why.
No, "But because TB RULEZ!!1" will not do.
And please read E5 thread first, or you'll repeat someone else, 99.9%.
Or don't bother, at all.

After all, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
TB is dumbed-down RT.
Dumbed-down for a reason - in 'undumbed RT' other things would have to be sacrificed (like ability to play someone with reaction better then yours, or multiple characters), and those things far outweight all flaws of TB.
But SPM allow the system to stay RT, while retaining all the ability to control your characters as TB.
Oh, crap, I've said it all before.
Go read E5 thread, fucking noob. And if you still don't get it - fuck off.

P.S./Edit
Truth be told, RTwP or SPM also, ahem, simplify RT. But, at least, they simplify it w/o brutally hacking it so it loses most connections with reality.
And, and my reply show how I’m tired of posts like:
TB RULEZ, U SUK!
Or, at best:
TB RULEZ, because it's like chess, chess RULEZ, so TB also RULEZ!
Or, like VD said, and that's the best answer so far, cause it's at least completely fair:
TB RULEZ cause I LIKE IT!
Well, I like it too, but I also like SPM, my word is against yours, so fuck you buddy.
SPM allow things to be much more logical then TB? It allow you to control your character's every action at any given time (unless they are somehow unable to perform actions at all), and react to enemy actions exactly when needed?
Then it's better then TB. At least in THAT aspect. If you don't like it because it don't resemble chess - well, too bad for you. Not everyone is chess freak, if even I, myself, went to 'chess club' in childhood and still like to play it from time to time... if lack worthy partners (that's not saying much, though - people I know at best 'know the rules').

And I'm not attacking TB, really. I'm defending SPM from people who never seen a game that have decent implementation of it, but bellow that 'RTWP SUK!'.
That's like saying that: "This classic of world poetry SUK! Why? Cause I've read poetry written by my prepubescent brother, and it was godawful! And by reading one page of verses, I've seen them all, thank you.".
 

Deacdo

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
585
Balor said:
You peek from the corner, interrupt, some guy unloads two SMG bursts into you, reload.
That isn't an inherent trait of TBed combat...it's just the way some designers implement it.

You spend your APs running to some door, next turn - an enemy comes from that door, and, yep, unloads two bursts into you, while you are fucking frozen in time and cannot do anything!
It's called "action and consequence", something unheard of in RT games.

but I consider it fucking flaws, and no one will ever persuade me otherwise.
That's fine, TBed combat isn't for you. It still isn't a flaw, though.

In Brigade enemies can also 'cover' doors to shoot at people that appear from them, for instance, REALLY fast - but that's logical and realistic.
Of course...it's "logical and realistic" in with RT combat, but it's a "flaw" in TBed :roll:

But the realism itself is fucking ABSOLUTE.
LOL! No it isn't. The RT w/pause system is just as unrealistic as TBed combat, in its own way. The whole "realism" argument is something made up by people who want action games with tactic-lite elements who don't want to have to worry about consequences.

After all, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
TB is dumbed-down RT.
RT w/ pause is dumbed down TBed.

E5 has some interesting ideas and I'll give it a go when it's released over here (as long as it is significantly improved over the old demo, which I'm sure it will be). But people like you tend to put me off. You try too hard to hype it. Makes me think you're trying to make up for some major flaws.
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
"Action&consequence" crap skipped, cause I already explained my problem with it - if you don't get it - you never will... or, at least, unless you reread my words about 'realistic threats' N times.

Of course...it's "logical and realistic" in with RT combat, but it's a "flaw" in TBed :roll:
In E5, you can 'cover' a very small spot - usually, something like a door or turn.
It means you PREPARE for it, hold you weapon 'at the ready', which involve a severe fatigue hit unless you position your weapon on bipods, and you can only pull ONE shot off.
In Ja2 (let's return to the topic) - the enemy doing the interrupt can:
Turn around.
Rise his rifle.
Aim.
Shoot two times.
...during the interrupt while you stand there like a target. Challenging? Yea. Realistic? HELL NO!
I like my games being challenging. I play E5 on hard setting, where it sure is challenging. But I also like it fucking logical!

RT w/ pause is dumbed down TBed.
Well, see edit above.

E5 has some interesting ideas and I'll give it a go when it's released over here (as long as it is significantly improved over the old demo, which I'm sure it will be). But people like you tend to put me off. You try too hard to hype it. Makes me think you're trying to make up for some major flaws.
Heck, I'm not a PR guy. I don't get money for it, really, if even I would not mind since i'm already doing it, heh.
And yea, in terms of 'overall gameplay', not just combat system - E5 is worse then Ja2 - but mostly due to budget and time constrains. They had to cut many features and go with 'ascetic' graphical style (that's ok) and 'minimum objects' on maps (that's worse, cause you have less opportunity for cover).
Yet, it has nothing to do with game being RT or TB.
And it's combat system is controlable, very intricate, realistic and, above all, fun - at least, for me, and qutie a few people I know at qutie a few forums.

And btw, it's RPG Codex, not Turnbased Codex, last I 'heard'.

___
Oh, and I don't hype E5, really. I just show it as only example I have - example that Smart Pause System can be no worse and TB and clearly better at some aspects.
So, when I'm confronted with an other outcry: "TB is being replaced by Smart Pause! Death! Doom!" I go and point out that it's not as bad as one may think, because Brigade E5 implemented smart pause that WORKED.
And worked better then TB in some aspects, like I've noticed.
 

Deacdo

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
585
Balor said:
"Action&consequence" crap skipped, cause I already explained my problem with it - if you don't get it - you never will... or, at least, unless you reread my words about 'realistic threats' N times.
I read it. It's simply your view. It doesn't hold water.

Anyway, I'm going getting into this anymore. You've said it yourself: You won't be convinced otherwise. I don't see the point of wasting my time and that's why I left my last reply short.

Whatever the case, the "SPM" is interesting, if not something I want to see much of.
 

Human Shield

Augur
Joined
Sep 7, 2003
Messages
2,027
Location
VA, USA
Balor said:
"Action&consequence" crap skipped, cause I already explained my problem with it - if you don't get it - you never will... or, at least, unless you reread my words about 'realistic threats' N times.

You treat it like time being frozen instead of an abstraction of combat used to make better gameplay.

In E5, you can 'cover' a very small spot - usually, something like a door or turn.
It means you PREPARE for it, hold you weapon 'at the ready', which involve a severe fatigue hit unless you position your weapon on bipods, and you can only pull ONE shot off.
In Ja2 (let's return to the topic) - the enemy doing the interrupt can:
Turn around.
Rise his rifle.
Aim.
Shoot two times.
...during the interrupt while you stand there like a target. Challenging? Yea. Realistic? HELL NO!
I like my games being challenging. I play E5 on hard setting, where it sure is challenging. But I also like it fucking logical!

You realize TB can vary how interrupts work? You are nitpicking received flaws of one game's version.

What aspects does it do better? The only thing I've heard is that it feels more logical and realistic to you, but does that means greater ability for gameplay?

How do melee weapons work? How many bullets kill someone? How many pauses do you have to go through for complex maneuvers?
 

Avé

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
468
Meh, I didnt see anything revolutionary about E5's realtime.

Gimme Apoc's RT/TB.
 

Sisay

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
122
Location
Soviet Finland
I think this discussion is comparable to skill systems in RPGs. Increase by use systems seem more logical and realistic than point buy systems but point buy systems tend to work much better in the actual games. Both are unrealistic abstractions of the real thing. I have to agree with Human Shield on the interrupts, exactly why is it impossible to limit interrupts to one shot only, limit turning during interrupts or use both characters' stats to dictate wheter or not there is an interrupt (which TB games already do)? As for preparing, isn't that what the character does when he leaves enough APs for a shot after his own turn?
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
You treat it like time being frozen instead of an abstraction of combat used to make better gameplay.
I treat it as an abstraction that, essentially, results in time being frozen for the duration. And it SUK! You like it? Fine. I don't. It's illogical and stupid.
I guess it's fine at the Codex to dislike things that are illogical and stupid?

You realize TB can vary how interrupts work? You are nitpicking received flaws of one game's version.
Interrupts in SS work absolutely the same, for instance, And some games don't sport any interrupts at all (so, shoot-hide-repeat galore).
And besides, it's Ja thread.
How do melee weapons work? How many bullets kill someone? How many pauses do you have to go through for complex maneuvers?
You really wanna know?
Well, melee weapons don't work really well, due to few animations, and this system is, admittedly, was one among 'subjected to feature cuts'. Anyway, nothing fancy - you either stap people to death with bayonets, or beat em down, then kick in the vitals to finish off. Nothing like Martial Arts in Ja2, but it works.
How many bullets kill someone - lets say - from one to one hundred. You happy? It depends on WAY too many factors, including weapon, ammo, distance, armor, hit location, etc, etc.

How many pauses do you have to go through for complex maneuvers?
Depends on how complex. You can press Z and plan your actions beforehand (like shoot two times, duck, reload, run away), for example. (So, it really takes one pause) Or use alt+left click to 'shoot till death' (or when enemy will get out of sight).
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
Meh, I didnt see anything revolutionary about E5's realtime.
It's not revolutionary, really. It's evolutionary. But about as evolutionary as evolution of ape into human.
I think this discussion is comparable to skill systems in RPGs. Increase by use systems seem more logical and realistic than point buy systems but point buy systems tend to work much better in the actual games.
What? You really think so? Ok, I'll leave it on your conscience.
Oh, and don't come with up Fallout example. It was great not solely because of it's character system, and certainly not because of point-buy system. I consider it a flaw, myself.
I have to agree with Human Shield on the interrupts, exactly why is it impossible to limit interrupts to one shot only, limit turning during interrupts or use both characters' stats to dictate wheter or not there is an interrupt (which TB games already do)?
Oh yea, it's may be possible to implement more or less adequate interrupt system for TB. Yet, it is a HACK, and it would ever be a HACK, intent to fix most glaring problems of TB, and making it’s own in turn. And see Brigade E5 devs replies on that matter.
As for preparing, isn't that what the character does when he leaves enough APs for a shot after his own turn?
Oh no, not exactly. By simply 'leaving AP' you can also run away from encounter, or lay down first and then fire, etc, etc.
When you are prepared in E5, you can ONLY fire, and ONLY at spot you covered.
Yea, you can also change position, run away, etc - but that would lack the 'gravitas' of interrupt - meaning, the other character will notice you and, more often then not - start shooting himself, and you will have to compete with his reaction (and every millisecond will matter here).
Btw, that's why SMGs, shotguns and even handguns are highly valued in 'CC combat' in E5 - cause, just like in RL, they give you a split-second advantage in performing 'prepare+shoot'... and if you'll score a hit, the enemy, if not killed outright, will likely be shocked enough to stagger - that would allow you to fire an other round... until you’ll miss and he recovers - or he'll die from acute lead poisoning.
Now, implement THAT in TB!
No, simple initiative will not work. No, modifying it by your weapon’s ‘speed’ is hackish solution, too.
It’s simply how TB works. It's very 'abstracted' nature goes aganst that sort of thing... after all, you may try to run away, not shoot!
 

Section8

Cipher
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
4,321
Location
Wardenclyffe
After all, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
TB is dumbed-down RT.
Dumbed-down for a reason - in 'undumbed RT' other things would have to be sacrificed (like ability to play someone with reaction better then yours, or multiple characters), and those things far outweight all flaws of TB.
But SPM allow the system to stay RT, while retaining all the ability to control your characters as TB.

Poor choice of words. "Dumbed down" implies a reduction of complexity. TB retains the complexity, it merely simplifies the method of interfacing with it. SPM does exactly the same thing. I fail to see how making something manageable is dumbing down.

If there's a person out there who can manage the complexity of E5 in full real-time, they'd be a freak. You can't call something "dumbing down" when its essential for even the most intelligent tactician to reasonably manage.

As for Brigade E5, I think it's an interesting alternative to turn-based combat, in no way is it an evolution or advancement of the idea. It's just a different way to abstract reality.

It's like saying "All first person shooters should be like Operation Flashpoint, because it's more realistic." I don't want that. Op. Flash is an interesting game in it's own right, but I never enjoyed it enough to ever finish the game. Personally I prefer more "gamish" FPSs than actual simulators. Same with Flight Sims. I haven't really found a flight sim that I've enjoyed as much as Dynamix' "Aces" series, or even Cinemaware's "Wings."

Oh yea, it's may be possible to implement more or less adequate interrupt system for TB. Yet, it is a HACK, and it would ever be a HACK, intent to fix most glaring problems of TB, and making it’s own in turn.

How is it inherently a "HACK"? If it's part of the design in the first place, then it can't be. An example of a hack would be the pause in Baldur's Gate, which reeks of being added once the developers realised that six characters weren't manageable in pure real time.

And, I'm not going to touch any of your other arguments, because you seem unable to separate the concept of turn-based from flawed implementations of it.

It's a preference. Some people think that simulationism and "realism" is fun. Others don't. You can't argue that one is better than the other, except on grounds of personal preference.
 

obediah

Erudite
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
5,051
I prefer TB combat, but RTwP definitely offers more potential for realism. Especially for moden combat where there is a lot of jockeying for position and then things are decided very quickly by a lot of force.

There is a fundamental problem when character A can be killed at 12:20:00 by a bullet that was fired at 12:20::30.

There is a fundamental problem when 1 person running a 100 yard dash finishes, and has a 20 second break, before anyone else even starts moving.

There is a fundamental problem when you have a fully loaded machine gun, and are facing a guy that charges across a 200 yard clearing and then stabs you in the gut and are helpess to act while he's doing so. Even the most clever interrupt systems still interact poorly with initiative - perhaps if Mr. Knife goes after you then you must do nothing this turn to be able to use interrupt fire, but if Mr. Knife goes before you then you must have done nothing the previous turn.

The point of TB combat is to approximate a continuous entity (time) with discreet steps. The goal is to pick a step size large enough to make combat manageable, but small enough to minimize the effect of the approximation on game mechanics.

For example, if you make a knife fight simulator with a turn length of 3 hours, the only stat worth having is initiative. On the other hand, if you make a WW1 game that covers the entire western front and pick a turn length of .5 seconds , you won't notice any realism problems of TB and your game will take about 700 years to finish.

Just like you can make a histogram of a curve more accurate by decreasing the width of each bar, you can make turn based combat more realistic by increasing the turn length. As the time step gets shorter the chance and magnitude of conflicting events happening within a timestep decreases - for example if you do a 100 yard dash in .1 second turns rather than 10 second turns speed regains it's natural priority over initiative/reaction.

RTwP is just turn based, with very very small turns and various hacks to make The challenge then becomes how to present and manage the overwhelming complexity of .01 second turns for 4-15 characters? No one has met this challenge to my satisfaction yet. Most have went with a way dumbed down model to facilitate fast AKTION.

I look forward to trying this brigade game. I think aftershock did some things very very nice, but combat was still too cumbersome for me and it was too easy to misclick or otherwise inadvertantly lose value tenths of a second getting things paused and keeping each character doing what you want.
 

Balor

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
5,186
Location
Russia
@ Obediah
Gah! You stole my reply :). I mean, about TB being 'discreet', and that's the whole point. You may try to get around it, implement better interrupt systems, etc - but, all in all, one flaw remains - a flaw that cannot be removed due to it being the 'cornerstone' of TB - discrete time periods - "turns". Take it out - and it would not be turnbased anymore.
@ Section8
Well, notice my 'edit' ;) Yea, they all simplify RT - but TB does this in 'dumb down' way, in my book. *shrugs*
Well, anyway, it all depends on many factors. I'm not against TB - yet I see it's flaws, and SPM is better at many things.
Oh, and where you saw me advocating that all games should involve SPM, huh? I'm trying to say that diversity should be promoted, expecially since it's kind of diversity I (and not only I) like.
@ obediah again:
You can always try demo - there are links in E5 thread (look in last pages), with 'anglification' patches (they involve many nice changes, too).
Yea, retail has way more features and better AI - but the demo do show many things in 'good light'.
You may want to read bear's pit forum on that, btw. Due to demo having no manual - some, more 'advanced' control options and tactical manuevers may not be apparent at first glance.
 

LlamaGod

Cipher
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
3,095
Location
Yes
Turn Based games are more about pure strategics, which is what I like. I dont like dumb reactive pause crap.

Also, I dont get why someone would try to make a Real time with Pause JA because JA as a name probably isnt that strong on the sales, the main people looking to the JA sequels are the fans of the original, might as well appeal to them or they're appealing to nobody.
 

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