What cRPG has the most ridiculously (unnecessarily) elaborate mechanics?

[aleph]

... RTwP does not play exactly like TB and is therefore bad because ... just because!

Here, I summarized your post

 

[aleph]

E.Y.E.

fuck you

 

[Conan]

... RTwP does not play exactly like TB and is therefore bad because ... just because!

Here, I summarized your post

Friend, you and I seem to be reading different posts.

 

[sser]

E.Y.E.

fuck you

E.Y.E.'s gameplay is buried beneath a terrible interface, an opaque game world, vaguely defined game mechanics, led by a bizarre story that has the structure of a community-written fanfic, and it all takes place in a first-person perspective.

I was always under the impression that ridiculous and equally obfuscated world and game mechanics was a core of E.Y.E.'s appeal for a lot of people, as well as the crux of much of its criticism.

 

[Amn Nom]

Skyrim.

 

[DraQ]

Though not 100% ontopic but many 1st or 3rd Person RPGs feature elaborated weapon combat but don't deliver appropriate area-specific impact on the opponent. Ultimately worthless after you realize that no matter how you swing your weapon it doesn't change a fuck on the damage being made, e.g. Morrowind, Oblivion, Gothic3, Two Worlds...

The amount of work going into this is huge, using motion capturing systems etc. More recent games though show more impact or specific damage receiving areas, but a lot of games would work just without displaying weapons at all, like e.g. Lands of Lore III, Might Magic X, Grimrock... where you only see silhouettes.

If the best way of fixing it would be making it even more elaborate by adding locational damage, then it isn't *too* elaborate, is it?

RTwP is complexity!

Here, I summarized your post

Here, I fixed yours.

 

[Arkadin]

Called shots in Fallout were great when you were a kid and thought "oh man, I'll aim for the crotch! I'll aim for the legs to cripple him! I'll aim for the hands to disarm him!" Then you become wise and find out it's just aim for the eyes, every time. It would have been neat with proper implementation but instead it was kind of a meaningless choice.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

... RTwP does not play exactly like TB and is therefore bad because ... just because!

Here, I summarized your post

Your not caring to have complete control over combat does not mean that RTWP and TB offer the same experience. It means the difference is unimportant to you or lost on you.

I liken RTWP to driving my Bimmer in auto sport mode with all the driving aids on. Yes it is viable and efficient, but it will never give the feel or control I get if I turn stability and traction control off and shift manually. Never.

In auto mode, your party will never be as performant. The difference between the two is amplified exponentially when you are tracking 6 party members and 10 mobs.

You may counter that you can do the same using pause every two seconds. I doubt it, but even if you can get marginally close, you might as well want TB since it will eliminate the monotony of trying to play TB within a RT system.

Wiz8 got it right in this respect. Phased with the ability to go on auto to mop up is the cat's ass.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

I liken RTWP to driving my Bimmer in auto sport mode with all the driving aids on. Yes it is viable and efficient, but it will never give the feel or control I get if I turn stability and traction control off and shift manually. Never.

In auto mode, your party will never be as performant. The difference between the two is amplified exponentially when you are tracking 6 party members and 10 mobs.

The problem with this analogy, and most critiques of RTwP, is that it doesn't take into account the biggest advantage of adopting real time with pause into your game systems: the fact that it has simultaneous resolution of actions. That's a big deal because in certain systems it can be the difference between winning or losing an encounter.

(A)D&D games are good examples of this. In turn-based titles utilizing that system the "critical turn" of the encounter, the one in which the battle is all but decided, can often occur before one side (player or computer) has really had a chance to interact meaningfully. Higher-level Gold Box games have things such as the joy of (Delayed-Blast) Fireball locks, as well as bad beats on saves or enemy attack rolls, as punishment for "failing" at initiative rolls. A more recent example would be the final and secret final fights in Knights of the Chalice, where poor luck on initiative rolls (not uncommon given the numerical superiority of your foes) could result in key members of your four-man party being debilitated or killed before you have a chance to respond.

Basically, you have a combat system where combatants line up to trade haymakers...except a coinflip basically determines who throws the first punch. Pen and paper D&D is robust against this, because player and DM can interact in ways that cRPGs struggle to. Players can use the skills of the character, and their wits, to come up with ways to avoid ambush or even get the drop on their foes. And most turn-based tactical games with high-lethality typically allow the player to move units in such a way as to avoid taking attacks. Most of the gameplay/tactics in XCOM/JA2 are about playing "footsies", to appropriate fighting game lingo, in such a way as to position units to eliminate enemies without being retaliated upon.

RTwP has it's place in games where you don't want to develop a lot of systems/mechanics for determining sequence of actions but sequence is very important. Hence, D&D cRPGs were a great fit.

 

[octavius]

Any real time with pause game.

No matter how deep the system you start out with is, it's just a giant clusterfuck as soon as combat starts.

You are one of those guys who never figured out what the space bar does in Baldur's Gate, aren't you?

You have no real control over movement, which kills 99% of tactical options. Being able to pause to tell someone to run away does jack shit when they take the longest path possible and the enemy moves at the same time. In combat movement in a RTWP game, movement is either pure cheese (ranged attack kiting enemies without the AI to realize trying to melee you is pointless) or completely pointless. Rarely, if ever, is there a medium between the two.

In addition, for a system supposed to be faster than turn based as its main selling point, RTWP games run SLOWER than turn based combat that doesn't have animations that are slow as shit. No matter what order I issue, it will always take 6 seconds to execute, meaning even the lowest trash mob my group can mindlessly kill (which tend to be EVERYWHERE in RtwP games) will always take a minimum of 6 seconds, often longer if there are more than I have attackers.

The RTwP system of the IE games have a longer learning curve than your average turn based system. Sounds like you don't have the patience to learn it, 'cause it actually works pretty well once you do. Sure, you need to babysit your characters carefully in large or complex battles, which can be annoying, but for easy combats, once you have given you characters their optimal combat scripts, you can just turn on the the AI and the battle will be over in a few seconds.

 

[V_K]

Sure, you need to babysit your characters carefully in large or complex battles, which can be annoying, but for easy combats, once you have given you characters their optimal combat scripts, you can just turn on the the AI and the battle will be over in a few seconds.

So it's either annoying or boring and meaningless? Great combat system, I completely agree .

 

[octavius]

Sure, you need to babysit your characters carefully in large or complex battles, which can be annoying, but for easy combats, once you have given you characters their optimal combat scripts, you can just turn on the the AI and the battle will be over in a few seconds.

So it's either annoying or boring and meaningless? Great combat system, I completely agree .

You can do better if you put in more effort, Mr. Stawman.

 

[Conan]

I am not sure here Octavius so please help me. As I see it, the objections raised deuxhero all sound correct. To paraphrase what he says clearly,

a) RTwP is an alternative to Turn Based as it claims to be less time consuming.
b) But since AI and Pathfinding do not work well, you require more time to plan, while having to pause consistently. Thus, it actually does not deliver on the "speedier than thou" argument.
c) Tactical positioning is compromised in such a system, simply because there is not fine control over movement.
d) Real Time can be exploited for degenerate running around hit and run.

All of these as I see are quite valid points. Would you have something constructive to say about RTwP? I am curious to hear what makes it so favored by some.

 

[octavius]

I am not sure here Octavius so please help me. As I see it, the objections raised deuxhero all sound correct. To paraphrase what he says clearly,

a) RTwP is an alternative to Turn Based as it claims to be less time consuming.
b) But since AI and Pathfinding do not work well, you require more time to plan, while having to pause consistently. Thus, it actually does not deliver on the "speedier than thou" argument.
c) Tactical positioning is compromised in such a system, simply because there is not fine control over movement.
d) Real Time can be exploited for degenerate running around hit and run.

All of these as I see are quite valid points. Would you have something constructive to say about RTwP? I am curious to hear what makes it so favored by some.

a) and b) I don't think any of them is more time consuming than the other.
c) Sure, you lose some control. And lack of ZoC/Opportunity Attacks and grid means formations are usually meaningless.
d) Any game can be exploited. In the Gold Box games a "clever" tactic is to move up to spell casters, move away and have them waste their turn on an Opportunity Attack. But if you need to cheat in a single player game, maybe CRPGs is not the thing for you?
There's also the matter of simultaneity which Edward_R_Murrow touched on, which gives the combat a different dynamic.

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in the end product.
And the end result is that the RTwP combat of the IE games is superior to 99% of all the turn based CRPGs. But that really says more about how crap combat is in most CRPGs, 'cause the combat in the IE games is not so good because of the RTwP system, both for the following reasons:
1. Excellent encounter design, especially in Baldur's Gate 2.
2. A vast array of options and variety when it comes to monsters, spells and items. Also quite a lot of skills and abilities.
3. The potentially best AI in any cRPG, thanks to monsters having individual combat scripts which can be editied. The AI was very basic in vanilla BG1, but some of the mages with SCS scrips behave human like. Compare that to the utterly rotten AI in the Gold Box games, for example.

So to conclude: the IE combat may have been even better if it was turn based, but at least the RTwP offers something different, and it's still superior to 99% of other CRPGs.
It's also ironic that you find nearly all the good CRPG combat systems in AD&D games like the Gold Box games, IE games and Temple of Elemental Evil, despite so many "experts" claiming that AD&D is such a horrible system.
So why the hell hasn't anyone come up with something better?

 

[SwiftCrack]

E.Y.E.

fuck you

E.Y.E.'s gameplay is buried beneath a terrible interface, an opaque game world, vaguely defined game mechanics, led by a bizarre story that has the structure of a community-written fanfic, and it all takes place in a first-person perspective.

I was always under the impression that ridiculous and equally obfuscated world and game mechanics was a core of E.Y.E.'s appeal for a lot of people, as well as the crux of much of its criticism.

Finally I have found someone who doesn't think E.Y.E. is 'great but rough around the edges'. What a piece of shit .

 

[deuxhero]

b) But since AI and Pathfinding do not work well, you require more time to plan, while having to pause consistently. Thus, it actually does not deliver on the "speedier than thou" argument.

That and how you need to wait for each round to happen even when it's clear what will happen.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Most of them.

 

[Tommy Wiseau]

Lots of 'spergs ITT btw.

 

[Decado]

RTwP is perfectly fine, if done by the right people. I shit on DA:O a lot, but one thing I liked was the combat mechanics. Combat was for the most part stupidly easy, but I think they did an admirable job of melding the MMO holy grail of tank/dps/support with the RTwP concept, and it was quite good for what it was. Of course, the rest of the game fell somewhere on the spectrum of Meh --------> Jesus Christ ---------> I just flirted with an elf to get a dexterity bonus ----------> God this is fucking awful.

 

[Sunsetspawn]

Agreed, but you still had to babysit dem retards to keep them from sticking their faces into friendly fire.

 

[DraQ]

Called shots in Fallout were great when you were a kid and thought "oh man, I'll aim for the crotch! I'll aim for the legs to cripple him! I'll aim for the hands to disarm him!" Then you become wise and find out it's just aim for the eyes, every time. It would have been neat with proper implementation but instead it was kind of a meaningless choice.

So wouldn't it be better to actually make that meaningful choice by further elaborating the combat mechanics?
Or are you arguing that FO already had too much tactical complexity as it was?


I can imagine game with spurious complexity, but as long as we aren't asked to regularly void our adventurers' bowels at the risk of movement and health penalties as well as lethal infection resulting from abdomen wounds, such excessively complex games remain purely theoretical possibility - so far we aren't even getting sufficiently complex ones.

Your not caring to have complete control over combat does not mean that RTWP and TB offer the same experience. It means the difference is unimportant to you or lost on you.

I liken RTWP to driving my Bimmer in auto sport mode with all the driving aids on. Yes it is viable and efficient, but it will never give the feel or control I get if I turn stability and traction control off and shift manually. Never.

Actually, I can't agree with that.

You can theoretically have much finer control in RTWP because of arbitrarily high input frequency instead of fixed input timing. The problem is that it comes at the cost of massive effort overhead on part of the player and stuff like pathfinding being harder to realize, so the primary question is whether you can make the advantages matter enough to be worth it and whether you can make it work well enough.
IE games failed hard at both fronts - being effectively TB emulators running in RT they obviously didn't benefit from fine timing control, and the AI, including pathfinding was an absolute clusterfuck.

TBH I haven't encountered many games where both answers would be 'yes', justifying an RTWP system - certainly none among party-based cRPGs so far.

Still RTWP isn't inherently complex, nor elaborate.

In auto mode, your party will never be as performant. The difference between the two is amplified exponentially when you are tracking 6 party members and 10 mobs.

Auto mode doesn't quite reflect what you can do with a system, though.
It's like arguing that TB is automatically shit because it may have an auto-resolve feature.

Wiz8 got it right in this respect. Phased with the ability to go on auto to mop up is the cat's ass.

I can agree with that and phase based is generally superior to normal TB, though Wiz8 badly needed ability to speed up execution phase by making actions simultaneous, to fully capitalize on this difference. It would also be neat to have blobber with ability to split off party members or entire sub-parties, combining flexibility of non-blob combat system, with relative simplicity and reliability of blob.

 

[Arkadin]

Called shots in Fallout were great when you were a kid and thought "oh man, I'll aim for the crotch! I'll aim for the legs to cripple him! I'll aim for the hands to disarm him!" Then you become wise and find out it's just aim for the eyes, every time. It would have been neat with proper implementation but instead it was kind of a meaningless choice.

So wouldn't it be better to actually make that meaningful choice by further elaborating the combat mechanics?
Or are you arguing that FO already had too much tactical complexity as it was?

Of course it would probably be better to elaborate them

 

[Damned Registrations]

They didn't need to be more elaborate though, they just needed to be balanced. If the amount of damage needed to cripple an arm or leg was tiny it would have been a valid choice. They just set the ratio too high, what is the point of crippling a guy that is one shot from death?

You can say the game would be better with more complexity, but adding complexity takes design resources. If they had spent some of those resources (like implementing useless skills) on balancing shit instead, it would be a better game. Streamlining is fine as long as it's done for the sake of improving gameplay instead of making shit accessible or marketable.

 

[octavius]

IE games failed hard at both fronts - being effectively TB emulators running in RT they obviously didn't benefit from fine timing control, and the AI, including pathfinding was an absolute clusterfuck.

AI and Pathfinding are two different things, at least when it comes to the IE games. AI is how smart the enemy is. In most of my favourite games (Gold Box, Civilization and Age of Wonders games) the AI is the weakest link, but in the IE games it can be really good.
Pathfinding is another matter, though. Few things are more annoying than ordering your archer to shoot, but when he doesn't have a clear line of sight instead of taking one step to the side, he decides to just get closer and closer until he's at point blank. But you learn the shortcomings of the pathfinding after a while.
Again it's worthwhile to compare the the Gold Box games and IE games. The GB games also suffer from bad path finding, the exploitation of which is the key to relatively easy win the "impossible" (without the Dust of Disappearance) fight against the Mulmaster Beholder Corps in Curse of the Azure Bonds.

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

I liken RTWP to driving my Bimmer in auto sport mode with all the driving aids on. Yes it is viable and efficient, but it will never give the feel or control I get if I turn stability and traction control off and shift manually. Never.

In auto mode, your party will never be as performant. The difference between the two is amplified exponentially when you are tracking 6 party members and 10 mobs.

The problem with this analogy, and most critiques of RTwP, is that it doesn't take into account the biggest advantage of adopting real time with pause into your game systems: the fact that it has simultaneous resolution of actions. That's a big deal because in certain systems it can be the difference between winning or losing an encounter.

I think simultaneous resolution is not the case most of the time. The appearance over a few seconds may lead to that assumption in most cases, but many games with RTWP were described by the devs themselves as essentially TB in all that mattered, with a real-time facade or "rounds" calculated in seconds. I suspect that calculations were very much the same as TB in many cases. I haven't cataloged this and have no interest to really, just adding to the discussion.

You mentioned RTWP simultaneous resolution allowing the character to bring its talents to bear during resolution. This very same thing happens in TB combat so I don't see your point there. If a kobold tries to trip my bard as its turn, my bard is checked for various things that would thwart or perhaps even counter the attempt. This does not take a turn on my bard's behalf.