Game News Tyranny Dev Diary #1: The Vision for Tyranny

[Excidium II]

I just don't see the point of it. TB is easier to implement and generally plays better.

I'd rather see the effort that goes into making RTWP potentially great go into something else.

 

[Athelas]

RTwP seems to be on its way out though, what with Bioware's shift to action RPG's and most every non-AAA RPG these days being turn-based (and even some AAA RPG's, e.g. XCom).

Funnily enough, RTwP probably carries more of a perception of being outdated and 'archaic' nowadays than a turn-based system does.

 

[Thonius]

But Feargus told us that TB is not gonna sell! Or whatever his stance was.

 

[Fairfax]

It's like asking if PST is so good, why aren't there more games like it?


http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...t-eternity-how-does-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/

Pause is a compromise because there's no interface that would allow it to be controlled on the fly, although scripting can make it a lot faster and requires the player to pause less often.

You're arguing that TB is superior because you have to consider the enemy's turn. No shit. All it means is that in TB you have your decisions limited by turns, while RTwP requires constant input and has immediate results.
There is nothing inherently superior or inferior about either system, it depends on the execution.

I just don't see the point of it. TB is easier to implement and generally plays better.

I'd rather see the effort that goes into making RTWP potentially great go into something else.

TB is not inherently deeper, more challenging, more tactical or whathever. It's easier to make, but that's about it.
The thing about TB is that even the best systems will always take a lot more of the player's time. If you have the resources to make RTwP that's just as good as TB, all TB does is waste the player's time and (usually) make the developer less money.

 

[Excidium II]

Whatever you say Feargus.

 

[Trashos]

I have mentioned this before, the human brain can only process consciously a certain number of stimuli at any given moment. I do not remember the exact number, and there is slight variation between different humans, but it is somewhere 5<X<10. If there are more than X things going on concurrently, the surplass enters the unconscious instead.

This means that real-time mode is inherently a clusterfuck, unless there are very few things going on. Tactical accuracy in RTwP goes out the window every time you hit unpause.

Tactical accuracy, on the other hand, is very important in a well-designed TB system (chess etc). So if you care about accuracy, TB is inherently superior.

RTwP forces you to use intuition more, so it's not all bad. I am a BG2 fan myself, I just wouldn't compare its system favorably compared to a well-designed TB system.

 

[Excidium II]

I have mentioned this before, the human brain can only process consciously a certain number of stimuli at any given moment. I do not remember the exact number, and there is slight variation between different humans, but it is somewhere 5<X<10. If there are more than X things going on concurrently, the surplass enters the unconscious instead.

I think that is exaggerated, at least in the context of RTWP CRPGs. I stay in conscious control except for things like PoE recovery times and attack/move speed because I'm not a computer.

 

[Trashos]

I think that is exaggerated, at least in the context of RTWP CRPGs. I stay in conscious control except for things like PoE recovery times and attack/move speed because I'm not a computer.

I expect that you stay in conscious control because you disregard all opponents or things that you consider non-crucial.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pause is a compromise because there's no interface that would allow it to be controlled on the fly, although scripting can make it a lot faster and requires the player to pause less often.

You pause less often - the game plays itself.

You're arguing that TB is superior because you have to consider the enemy's turn. No shit. All it means is that in TB you have your decisions limited by turns, while RTwP requires constant input and has immediate results.

First, turns adds complexity, not limit. You have to make decisions based on the unknown and factor different possibilities during the enemy's turn, which by default is more strategic than pausing to issue basic orders reacting to real-time threats (heal, attack, cast spells). Thus it's strategy and tactics vs reacting.

Second, no RTwP game requires constant input. Not a single one. While it's loads of fun discussing hypothetical super awesome combat systems that get everything right, why don't we wait until someone actually creates such a system? I played Pillars on Hard and I'd say that a third of all fights didn't require any input whatsoever, another third required occasional input, no more than 2 pauses per fight, and the last third required 4-5 pauses per fight, mainly to cast spells. I can't say that watching the game play itself was as exciting as playing JA2 or even Wiz 8.

The thing about TB is that even the best systems will always take a lot more of the player's time. If you have the resources to make RTwP that's just as good as TB, all TB does is waste the player's time and (usually) make the developer less money.

That's a big IF, don't you think? I mean what if it also gives you blowjobs while you play? Won't that be the most awesome combat system ever?

 

[an Administrator]

Definitely you can't have Turn-Based combat in an RPG where the Evil won.

 

[Kaivokz]

This means that real-time mode is inherently a clusterfuck, unless there are very few things going on. Tactical accuracy in RTwP goes out the window every time you hit unpause.

Tactical accuracy, on the other hand, is very important in a well-designed TB system (chess etc). So if you care about accuracy, TB is inherently superior.

You can play chess with what is the equivalent of RTwP. There are variants where both players plan their move, then the game unpauses and those moves occur simultaneously. You just need an addendum to handle conflicts. For example:

Spoiler

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._R._Parton#Synchronistic_Chess
For each turn players decide their moves, write them down secretly, then disclose them. They adjust the position accordingly, using the following rules of resolution when needed:

If moves were to the same square, then White captures Black if the square is on Black's half of the board; Black captures White if the square is on White's half.

If moves were reciprocal captures, then both pieces are removed from the board.

If one player moved to a square the opponent's piece occupied, but that piece moved away in the turn, it is considered captured and removed from the board if it is of lower rank (K > Q > R > B > N > P). If it is the same or higher rank, then both moves stand.

But it's a good question: why is TB chess more popular than synchronistic chess? Probably at least in part because its easier for spectators to watch and know what's going on, and it's easier to learn (you need to know and remember less rules; some people can't even handle the move from checkers to chess). In this case it's certainly not that the number of stimuli is too large. Another part of it is that without a computer you would be forced to record your move manually in some way. But maybe "You take your turn, then I take my turn" just lines up more naturally with our psychology somehow.

Anyway, even if most tactical accuracy goes out the window when you unpause, you can just pause again. Do you feel the same way about synchronistic games? e.g. If you gave a set of commands to your party and then were forced to wait 6 seconds as the round played out, and then you gave another set of commands for the next round? (such a game does seem to demand more from the player than a standard TB model)

 

[Excidium II]

That's how many TB systems work. I find it superior.

 

[Trashos]

You can play chess with what is the equivalent of RTwP. There are variants where both players plan their move, then the game unpauses and those moves occur simultaneously. You just need an addendum to handle conflicts.

I don't see how that is considered RTwP. It sounds like TB to me (synchronistic TB, but still TB). The main point here is that the action in TB proceeds in what the human brain regards and processes as well-defined steps, and there are strict and clear rules that define what can be done in each step. The argument that I 've given above regarding what the human brain can notice can be applied to RTwP but not to synchronistic TB. Also see below.

But it's a good question: why is TB chess more popular than synchronistic chess? Probably at least in part because its easier for spectators to watch and know what's going on, and it's easier to learn (you need to know and remember less rules; some people can't even handle the move from checkers to chess). In this case it's certainly not that the number of stimuli is too large. Another part of it is that without a computer you would be forced to record your move manually in some way. But maybe "You take your turn, then I take my turn" just lines up more naturally with our psychology somehow.

I haven't looked into synchronistic chess enough to be able to form an opinion on its quality vs conventional chess.

Anyway, even if most tactical accuracy goes out the window when you unpause, you can just pause again. Do you feel the same way about synchronistic games? e.g. If you gave a set of commands to your party and then were forced to wait 6 seconds as the round played out, and then you gave another set of commands for the next round? (such a game does seem to demand more from the player than a standard TB model)

Your argument then is that RTwP can be played as synchronistic TB, which in turn shows that RTwP is not inherently a clusterfuck. This is an interesting idea, but I see a big flaw: How can a RTwP system be tactically as deep as TB, while allowing for variable steps of action? I say it can't, because the player cannot optimize on things that are vague.

To illustrate, let's take Baldur's Gate, which is RTwP and it even involves turns. Try to come up with an optimal plan and execute it to the last detail. You won't be able to execute it with perfect accuracy, because you probably don't know the mechanics behind movement (and this is true for any RTwP cRPG ever).

But even if you know the exact mechanics behind movement, which you don't, the designer will have to account for various and varying pausing habits, which will necessarily make the game either too easy or gimmicky when the optimal course of action is sought for. I really don't see a way out of this, except for turning the RTwP system into a complete synchronistic TB system, and therefore TB. If RTwP enthusiasts want to prove me wrong, they have to present a RTwP sample where analysis and optimization works as accurately as in TB. I haven't seen such a thing yet.

Also note that RTwP games do not seem to be moving towards synchronistic TB, but rather away from it. Eg, DAO and PoE do not even involve turns.

 

[l3loodAngel]

I have played both shitty RTwps and TBs. Usually a game is good (for me), when it does these things right (it does not matter TB or RTwp):

1. Good character system.
2. Solid combat system.
3. Strategic encounters.

Any company that does this can have my money, but its too much to ask nowadays...

 

[Bubbles]

I have played both shitty RTwps and TBs. Usually a game is good (for me), when it does these things right (it does not matter TB or RTwp):

1. Good character system.
2. Solid combat system.
3. Strategic encounters.

Any company that does this can have my money, but its too much to ask nowadays...

AoD, Voidspire Tactics and The Dwarf Run just came out last year.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Sank few hundred hours into AOD. The other two look unispiring, but might give them a try.

 

[Excidium II]

AoD, Voidspire Tactics and The Dwarf Run just came out last year.

Is The Dwarf Run a meme or what? It looks like a game dev class project.

 

[Bubbles]

AoD, Voidspire Tactics and The Dwarf Run just came out last year.

Is The Dwarf Run a meme or what? It looks like a game dev class project.

You'd want to play it for the gameplay, not for the graphics.

 

[Excidium II]

Well just by looking at it I would never expect gameplay beyond some Unity Store Ultimate Fantasy RPG package.

 

[Roguey]

There are a lotta goons who want to play RPGs with a party but find turn-based games too slow for their tastes regardless of how fast they are.

 

[LeStryfe79]

In D&D terms, most RPGs have you playing a Chaotic Good character who gives fuck all about laws but ultimately serves a greater purpose. The opposite alignment in D&D, which is Lawful Evil, is also known as Tyranny. It almost feels like Obsidian just sat around a table, drinking bottled water, when somebody shouted: "Hey lets reverse the alignments!"

Then, everyone had orgasms and a new game was born that day.

 

[Excidium II]

Chaotic Neutral is more like typical CRPG.

 

[Thonius]

Nah, Neutral Evil - all those unattended chests and barrels in houses of commoners. Killing for xp etc.

 

[Excidium II]

Nah, Neutral Evil - all those unattended chests and barrels in houses of commoners. Killing for xp etc.

Neutral Evil people out there risking their lives solving other people's problems primarily for the sightseeing and challenge. Sounds accurate.

 

[Lacrymas]

Too bad they still don't get the whole good/evil thing. It's not whether it's good or evil, it's the choices that characters make that matter, how and why they make them, in what context, and how other characters react to these choices with choices of their own. It's also not about making the "evil" path rewarding, it's about logical progression of events. In AoD if you go into suspicious alleyways you get ambushed. Going into that alleyway is a choice. Doing the bidding of a lord will probably pay well if s/he doesn't betray you. Those are very simple examples, you can get way more elaborate than that. I saw that MCA has been creative lead and that gives me hope, but hope is a cruel mistress. There are a few questions that pop up regarding other stuff - the combat is even more streamlined than PoE? How is that even possible? Why are they trying to go with mass appeal with an isometric "RPG"? Does that mean we should be expecting Bethesda-type hamster wheel gameplay? A lot of things seem to contradict each other from the very basic premises and design choices.