nuCodexers talk about le trashmobs meme, but the real killer in RPGs are trash dialog mobs.

[Storyfag]

NuXcom is truly the harbinger of decline, ever since it came out most tactical games went to shit, it's so dumbed down it feels more like a board game then a tactical.

If anything, that is an understatement. The whole design of nuXcoms combat scenarios is overwhelmingly shite.

 

[JarlFrank]

In the meantime, as much as i dislike that 2 action point system (it's not just nuXcom, it's also the shadowrun trilogy and seems like you like Dragonfall, might have seen you name on a poll), it's still better than RTwP, because at the very least, you can build good combat encounters with it, with a pinch of talent.

Yes I liked Dragonfall and found the combat to be enjoyable, but it would be better with a proper action point system rather than the one it has now.

It's not that every game using this system is necessarily bad, but it would be better if it used classic JA2/Silent Storm/Fallout style action points.

 

[barghwata]

Also, you vastly overestimate the "tactical" part even in RPGs that claim to have "tactical combat".

Yes i agree, most RPGs have weak tactical combat, why should i make it even worst by overpowering my character?

Playing the way you are "intended" to play sounds terribly tedious and boring.

I'd rather grind first, then go and rape the contents of the game at a whim, than keep on low-key grinding throughout the entirety of it and never get a release for my effort. What do I get for an orgasm, ending slides?

I guess this is just a matter of personal taste, we're just not gonna see eye to eye on this. For me personally, outsmarting an enemy that is stronger then me against all odds is way more fun.

When the game is padded in a way that you are conveniently supposed to learn Hold Person just about the time you begin encountering monsters who require Hold Person to defeat, those new spells and abilities might as well not exist.

This is only a problem if the progression system is too linear, which is sadly an issue with many modern RPGs. Ideally the player should be given a lot of options (spells, abilities etc....) to choose from and experiment with instead of just giving you an ability the moment it becomes necessary to use it.

If you aren't making this process easier, you are only working to see different kinds of sprites and flashy special effects.

RPGs should offer a variety of spells, abilities etc... with different utilities and uses as you progress; if all you're getting when progressing is flashier special effects with higher damage then that's just a case of a shitty progression system.

If you don't like overpowering, you support level scaling

Not at all, i hate level scaling. I am not saying RPGs should completely take away the possibility of overpowering from the player, i don't have an issue with giving the player the option to grind if they feel like it especially since it gives inexperienced players a chance to compensate by leveling up and it's also helpful in case you fuck up and make a shitty build and you want to fix it. All i'm saying is that i personally don't like it and i won't go out of my way to try to make my character overpowered if i can afford not to do it.

 

[Valky]

There is a big difference between the concision found in IWD and JA2, and the waffle, wankery and wordiness found in PS:T.



That was before I refined my commentary to 1996-2010 only (which is still too broad and further refinements need to be made, lest I come off as a generalist).



PS:T and games like it need to be purged from genre rankings. The 'Dex will never purge storyfaggotry, which is why I'll never go in lock, stock and barrel with the 'Dex, and why I have my own platform to express my views on.

If the 'Dex banned all storyfaggots and anyone who said PS:T was GOAT, I'd feel at home here. But that won't happen.

I've thought about leaving the 'Dex because of its storyfaggot propensities, but I don't always have time to blog so this is a good place to express my views, too. Plus, there are a few hardline/non-storyfag posters that I like here.



I've never said writing itself needs to be purged from RPGs.

You're hard to like, but posts like this make you harder to hate.

 

[mondblut]

Also, you vastly overestimate the "tactical" part even in RPGs that claim to have "tactical combat".

Yes i agree, most RPGs have weak tactical combat, why should i make it even worst by overpowering my character?

Why endure poor gameplay when you can invest some time to speed it up? It's not like complex tactical simulations ever were the point of the genre. Before WOTC went into miniatures business, D&D combat was supposed to be played mostly in imagination and a rough terrain sketch at best - hence blobbers.

Then again, even in a superdetailed and realistic combat-centric simulation nothing beats the sheer thrill of bringing the submachine gun into a fistfight.

I guess this is just a matter of personal taste, we're just not gonna see eye to eye on this. For me personally, outsmarting an enemy that is stronger then me against all odds is way more fun.

You are playing against the braindead AI. Anything you call "outsmarting" is basically an exploit. How is popping out from behind a corner, taking a potshot and stepping back all in one turn in Fallout, or causing a beholder to waste his turn's worth of actions on melee attacks of opportunity in a goldbox game better than overleveling a bit and just shugging the enemies off?

True enough, it's a matter of personal taste indeed.

This is only a problem if the progression system is too linear, which is sadly an issue with many modern RPGs. Ideally the player should be given a lot of options (spells, abilities etc....) to choose from and experiment with instead of just giving you an ability the moment it becomes necessary to use it.

RPGs should offer a variety of spells, abilities etc... with different utilities and uses as you progress; if all you're getting when progressing is flashier special effects with higher damage then that's just a case of a shitty progression system.

Well, what else do you expect from that variety of spells and abilities other than making the enemies' hitpoints run out? Recruiting them on your side and sending them to loot the nearby settlement? Teleporting past them all right into their treasury and back? Charming the king of the land and spending the rest of your life in leisure and luxury instead of adventuring in dirty dungeons? The genre's existing track record is rather poor at any kind of magic and abilities that are not used to win battles. And the point of progression is to win battles faster and more efficiently.

 

[barghwata]

Why endure poor gameplay when you can invest some time to speed it up?

I am not sure i follow ... so you don't want to endure poor gameplay and you want to speed it up and your solution to this is to spend hours and hours grinding??? isn't that wasting even more of your time on poor gameplay?

You are playing against the braindead AI. Anything you call "outsmarting" is basically an exploit. How is popping out from behind a corner, taking a potshot and stepping back all in one turn in Fallout, or causing a beholder to waste his turn's worth of actions on melee attacks of opportunity in a goldbox game

Exactly, the AI already has the huge disadvantage of being braindead which is why the only way of making combat feel even a little bit challenging and engaging is by fighting stronger enemies to level the plain field between you and the AI, forcing you to concentrate in the battle to avoid making mistakes. Overpowering your character is just overkill since you're not only fighting braindead AI, you're fighting braindead AI that's also weaker then you, it's about as fun as having a boxing match with a 5 year old.

Well, what else do you expect from that variety of spells and abilities other than making the enemies' hitpoints run out? Recruiting them on your side and sending them to loot the nearby settlement? Teleporting past them all right into their treasury and back? Charming the king of the land and spending the rest of your life in leisure and luxury instead of adventuring in dirty dungeons? The genre's existing track record is rather poor at any kind of magic and abilities that are not used to win battles. And the point of progression is to win battles faster and more efficiently.

Once again i am not sure i follow, i didn't say spells shouldn't be used for winning battles, all i said is that developers should give players alot of options to choose from as opposed to a linear progression system that forces players to progress in a certain way for the sake of balancing the game like in the example you brought up earlier:

When the game is padded in a way that you are conveniently supposed to learn Hold Person just about the time you begin encountering monsters who require Hold Person to defeat

 

[mondblut]

Why endure poor gameplay when you can invest some time to speed it up?

I am not sure i follow ... so you don't want to endure poor gameplay and you want to speed it up and your solution to this is to spend hours and hours grinding??? isn't that wasting even more of your time on poor gameplay?

Git gud. An hour spent grinding is two hours saved playing. It's an art of maximizing xp yield and making the power growth curve spike. Nobody grinds on the giant rats in the starting cellar.

Well, other than for a short-term boost early on

Exactly, the AI already has the huge disadvantage of being braindead which is why the only way of making combat feel even a little bit challenging and engaging is by fighting stronger enemies to level the plain field between you and the AI, forcing you to concentrate in the battle to avoid making mistakes.

For what?

Overpowering your character is just overkill since you're not only fighting braindead AI, you're fighting braindead AI that's also weaker then you, it's about as fun as having a boxing match with a 5 year old.

I'd love to, too bad it's forbidden.

Once again i am not sure i follow, i didn't say spells shouldn't be used for winning battles, all i said is that developers should give players alot of options to choose from as opposed to a linear progression system that forces players to progress in a certain way for the sake of balancing the game like in the example you brought up earlier:

Spells come in following varieties:

Those that do damage.
Those that kill outright.
Those that weaken enemies making them easier to kill by conventional means.
Those that strengthen you making it easier to kill enemies by conventional means.

The response to these spells is... as you acquire spells that do more damage, you encounter enemies with more hitpoints so these new spells are no more effective than the weaker ones were before them. As you acquire spells that kill, any enemies worth using these (always highly expensive) spells on are universally immune to them. As you acquire buffs and debuffs, you encounter enemies so bloated that using every buff and debuff you have is always mandatory (and any actually game-changing debuff, again, doesn't work on anything it is worth using against).

So what's the fucking point?

Fuck it. I'd rather acquire any of these several areas before I am "intended" to and actually put them to use without feeling robbed of their power.

 

[barghwata]

Why endure poor gameplay when you can invest some time to speed it up?

I am not sure i follow ... so you don't want to endure poor gameplay and you want to speed it up and your solution to this is to spend hours and hours grinding??? isn't that wasting even more of your time on poor gameplay?

Git gud. An hour spent grinding is two hours saved playing. It's an art of maximizing xp yield and making the power growth curve spike. Nobody grinds on the giant rats in the starting cellar.

Exactly, the AI already has the huge disadvantage of being braindead which is why the only way of making combat feel even a little bit challenging and engaging is by fighting stronger enemies to level the plain field between you and the AI, forcing you to concentrate in the battle to avoid making mistakes.

For what?

Overpowering your character is just overkill since you're not only fighting braindead AI, you're fighting braindead AI that's also weaker then you, it's about as fun as having a boxing match with a 5 year old.

I'd love to, too bad it's forbidden.

Once again i am not sure i follow, i didn't say spells shouldn't be used for winning battles, all i said is that developers should give players alot of options to choose from as opposed to a linear progression system that forces players to progress in a certain way for the sake of balancing the game like in the example you brought up earlier:

Spells come in following varieties:

Those that do damage.
Those that kill outright.
Those that weaken enemies making them easier to kill by conventional means.
Those that strengthen you making it easier to kill enemies by conventional means.

The response to these spells is... as you acquire spells that do more damage, you encounter enemies with more hitpoints so these new spells are no more effective than the weaker ones were before them. As you acquire spells that kill, any enemies worth using these (always highly expensive) spells on are universally immune to them. As you acquire buffs and debuffs, you encounter enemies so bloated that using every buff and debuff you have is always mandatory (and any actually game-changing debuff, again, doesn't work on anything it is worth using against).

So what's the fucking point?

Fuck it. I'd rather acquire any of these several areas before I am "intended" to and actually put them to use without feeling robbed of their power.

Wow!! we clearly have completely different preferences when it comes to what we enjoy about combat so i see no point in arguing any further; let's just respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[Trashos]

Those that do damage.
Those that kill outright.
Those that weaken enemies making them easier to kill by conventional means.
Those that strengthen you making it easier to kill enemies by conventional means.

The response to these spells is... as you acquire spells that do more damage, you encounter enemies with more hitpoints so these new spells are no more effective than the weaker ones were before them. As you acquire spells that kill, any enemies worth using these (always highly expensive) spells on are universally immune to them. As you acquire buffs and debuffs, you encounter enemies so bloated that using every buff and debuff you have is always mandatory (and any actually game-changing debuff, again, doesn't work on anything it is worth using against).

So what's the fucking point?

Half the point is that now you can tackle the encounter that you could not tackle before.

But the other half is that I expect more from a spell list than what you just described. I expect tactics and playstyle to play major roles (which I think you do not), and I expect later spells to allow for more advanced tactics or more systematic/less dicey tactics or more lethal/more dicey tactics etc-etc, and generally they should be helping me refine my playstyle, not give me more of the same. Whether this is achieved in most games is another matter. That is what I expect.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

If the 'Dex banned all storyfaggots and anyone who said PS:T was GOAT, I'd feel at home here. But that won't happen.

Purge! Das radical approach to the Storyfaggots Question, mein lieben frau.

 

[RNGsus]

Gays are the common denominator, its time address that.

 

[Quillon]

10 years later, they find out combat is boring while in fact, they're finally bored of RTwP trash but it's easier to blame the combat altogether rather than admit you were wrong and Turn-Based is the only way to make good combat design (it's also harder to make, that's why the market isn't flooded with those).

TBfags are already the overwhelming majority of codex and most devs(maybe all who presented their opinion) declared for TB; no need to present the codex supreme court with false evidence.

 

[Atchodas]

Did he just say that TB is harder to make than RTWP ...


If he really meant that then

Spoiler

 

[Quillon]

Nope, apparently I read it wrong

Wait, if upsized text is about TB I didn't read it wrong, else he wrote it wrong

 

[Lilura]

TBfags are already the overwhelming majority of codex and most devs(maybe all who presented their opinion) declared for TB; no need to present the codex supreme court with false evidence.

There is a big difference between current gen turn-based systems and Renaissance era turn-based systems.

You'd know that if you had played Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm and Temple of Elemental Evil.

There is also a yawning gulf in gaming aptitude between veterans of the above and, say, a pleb that plays Larian's games or some other form of current gen turn-based retardation.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

TBfags are already the overwhelming majority of codex and most devs(maybe all who presented their opinion) declared for TB; no need to present the codex supreme court with false evidence.

There is a big difference between current gen turn-based systems and Renaissance era turn-based systems.

You'd know that if you had played Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm and Temple of Elemental Evil.

There is also a yawning gulf in gaming aptitude between veterans of the above and, say, a pleb that plays Larian's games or some other form of current gen turn-based retardation.

Tactical Combat Wargames are not actually RPGs.

RPG is a story + C&C. You may call it VN or CYOA. Unless you are Vault Dweller I will call you retardo.

 

[JarlFrank]

TBfags are already the overwhelming majority of codex and most devs(maybe all who presented their opinion) declared for TB; no need to present the codex supreme court with false evidence.

There is a big difference between current gen turn-based systems and Renaissance era turn-based systems.

You'd know that if you had played Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm and Temple of Elemental Evil.

There is also a yawning gulf in gaming aptitude between veterans of the above and, say, a pleb that plays Larian's games or some other form of current gen turn-based retardation.

A big problem I see with game designers nowadays is a lack of historical perspective.

To a modern game designer, names like "Gold Box", "Baldur's Gate" and even "Diablo" are just names of classics that were popular once, but he's never actually played them himself. He hasn't even read the wikipedia article about them. All he knows is those games exist and have inspired a handful of modern games. He has only played the modern games, not the classics that inspired them, so he thinks the way modern games do it is the normal way and never experienced anything else.

Designers these days don't go back 20 or 30 years to look at what has been done before and how you might learn from that. Designers just go with what's popular in current year.

But to make a truly great game that builds upon the successes and rectifies the mistakes of the past, you need historical perspective.

You need at least passing familiarity with the golden age 80s classics, should have played most of the renaissance era RPGs and RPG hybrids such as Deus Ex, should have played modern RPGs, and should be able to compare games of different eras with each other in order to find out which approach works best. Ideally, you also have experience with strategy games, adventure games and action games so you can take inspiration from good ideas those genres brought forth, such as making an RTS-inspired interface for your RPG because those games have developed pretty good interfaces over the years.

A designer who only plays and is only aware of current year games is never going to create a classic. He's always going to be stuck following trends.

And the main issue of current year turn based tactics games is that they all clone the same system: nuXcom, because that's the cool thing everyone does. Many of those designers probably aren't even aware that there are other approaches out there because they never looked outside their bubble of current year design trends.

 

[Lilura]

Yeah, no shit, Jarl. You did say that well, though.

Way I see it, best thing I can do in this sphere is defend the legacies of what's best, and fuck the rest.

That goes for current gen devs, their games, and the fanbases.

 

[biggestboss]

Did he just say that TB is harder to make than RTWP ...


If he really meant that then

Spoiler

Turn based games are definitely harder to make than real time games in general from the programming end. Well, maybe harder is the wrong term. I would say it’s 100x more time consuming.

 

[Quillon]

Did he just say that TB is harder to make than RTWP ...


If he really meant that then

Spoiler

Turn based games are definitely harder to make than real time games in general from the programming end. Well, maybe harder is the wrong term. I would say it’s 100x more time consuming.

Do you think Larian can easily add RTwP to DOS2 as Obs added TB to Deadfire? Do you think nearly all indie RPGs of last 10 years being TB is only because of their passion for TB despite its apparently "100x more time consuming"?

 

[biggestboss]

Do you think Larian can easily add RTwP to DOS2 as Obs added TB to Deadfire? Do you think nearly all indie RPGs of last 10 years being TB is only because of their passion for TB?

I'm simply talking about constructing the games from a coding and mechanics standpoint, not trying to wedge a square into a round hole. Obviously adding RTWP to a TB game would be nigh impossible because it would be developing new mechanics and systems on top of existing ones, whereas going from RTWP to TB would be abstracting already existing systems into time based chunks. I also doubt anyone at Obsidian would use the word 'Easy' when describing the process of adding a TB mode to Deadfire.

 

[Quillon]

So developing more mechanics & systems takes less time... k.

IIRC 1 designer and 1 coder added TB mode to DF btw.

 

[biggestboss]

So developing more mechanics & systems takes less time... k.

IIRC 1 designer and 1 coder added TB mode to DF btw.

"Do you think nearly all indie RPGs of last 10 years being TB is only because of their passion for TB despite its apparently "100x more time consuming"?"

Yes, the reason why Indie CRPGs do turn based is because of passion and their enjoyment of PnP style systems. I'm currently working on a CRPG right now - actually I just started over from scratch but the old version was TB and so will the new one because I want to make a TB game and not a real time one. Difficulty of creating the game itself is secondary to this because I want to make a game I genuinely like.

Let's look into an example: If I were making the simplest implementation of a RTWP game's combat system, I would need to code enemy AI to check what state it's in (idle, aggressive), and then take in player input. If player clicks on an enemy with a hero selected, that hero moves towards the enemy. If the hero gets close enough to the enemy, start attacking. Code would trigger on the to-hit animations, depleting health until one of the units is dead. From a coding standpoint, it's not that much more than making a Mario clone. The complexity of these games (which would also need to be considered for TB as well) would be the underlying systems for skills, spells, stamina, etc.

To do the simplest implementation of TB combat, I would need a construct a system to manage the game state in order to determine who's turn it is and toggle player input on/off depending on whos turn it is. From simple description it is not complicated but making this system alone would take longer than the above RTWP system in its entirety. I would also need a separate system to check what range each hero/enemy unit can move and where the player can click in order to issue that command. This wasn't a concern in RT because the player can just click anywhere at any time and the unit's walk speed is what matters there as opposed to how much that unit can move in a single turn.

Going back to the state based system, you would also need to toggle specific functions of the player input on/off such as turning off the movement command when you have selected attack and make it so left click input only checks if another unit was clicked on instead of terrain to move. Again, each step mechanically is not difficult, but there is so much more to consider for turn based when the RT implementation of combat would have been completed in its entirety by now.

 

[JarlFrank]

I'm not a coder but I bet TB is generally easier to manage in coding. Your AI only has to handle individual units sequentially rather than a dozen units at the same time (ideally the AI would perform group tactics in turn based too but it's not strictly necessary). The sequentiality of actions makes it easier to debug and more predictable for the programmers. You don't have to account for quirks like "what if the enemy casts a ranged spell at your char but your char walks out of the spell's range before the casting animation is complete?"

It just seems logical that a system where each unit performs actions during its own turn, in sequence, is easier to program and less error-prone than a system where everyone acts at the same time.

 

[Quillon]

We need an experienced dev's input To me RTwP seems a lot more complex than TB, certainly much more complex than "check AI of enemy, click on it, move, attack" lol. I mean apparently pathfinding alone is a bitch to code.