Why is RTwP so popular in modern RPGs?

[Nevill]

Have been watching the RT/RTwP vs TB talk for a while on these forums.

For some reason, I don't see it mentioned often that these two types allow for completely different combat strategies. The simplest of examples would be, say, a proximity mine in X-com, which blows up once a unit approaches it.

In TB, it means that 95% of the time the proximity mine would only hit a single target, because in TB the core premise is that you always move one unit at a time.
In RT, a group of units can move simultaneously, which means that a well-placed proximity mine could cripple a potential zerg rush if a bunch of units run over it all at once.
As a result, the circumstances and the way in which you would use these mines would differ vastly depending on whether you play a TB or an RT game.

I remember seeing a thread on inxile or obsidian forums which was devoted to these kinds of differences - different strategies that are feasible in one style that do not translate to the other easily, or at all. I wonder if anyone can link to it. That seems to me a lot more worthy of discussion than the usual shitfest of 'popamole' vs 'boring'.

To answer the OP - I don't have the reflexes to play games in RT anymore, and with the amount of complexity RPGs usually have an option to pause and think about your next step is appreciated. As for why not go for TB from the start - not everything translates well in TB.

 

[DavidBVal]

I know a few dozen people that play videogames, mostly are casual players. Of them, almost NO ONE except the 5-6 that come from my old PnP group, would ever play a turn based game with complex mechanics to learn. And action games release endorphines that make people excited and addicted. If you don't have very interesting strategies and mechanics in your games, endorphines are an alternative to make it fun. So the evolution from turns to action is only logical as a market moves from niche to mainstream through 4 decades, and RTwP happened to be a step in that change.

I think the intent of going from pure TB to RTwP and action was actually a honest one, not 100% because of sales. RPGs were simulations, which in its origin, the PnPs, were structured in turns because it's the only way a tabletop with 6 players can work; but turns were only that, a way to deal with a problem of representing something impossible to simulate without breaking the game. Reality doesn't happen in turns, and when you make a game that is a simulation of reality, there's nothing bad in attempting to make it more similar to reality, and have it happening in continuous time. So it is only natural that when computers gave the chance to offer the RPGs in real time, it was tried.

And even if I prefer turn based RPGs myself, I think it is a good thing that it was tried. Many of those games were real jewels, although it is true that they missed some of the pure flavor of the Gold Box games, or other TB games, and were less strategic. Years later we saw some games returning to TB, others becoming even more dumbed down to accomodate action more easily and without pause.

 

[Nevill]

So the evolution from turns to action is only logical as a market moves from niche to mainstream through 4 decades, and RTwP happened to be a step in that change.

Is this really just a step, though? How many RT RPGs that aren't aRPGs can you list off the top of your head?

Even in a 3D-shooter that Mass Effect has become you still have to manage special abilities on several characters, and a pause is ideal for that. If you want to have any complexity in your game, anything that requires thinking at all, - and if you are not going for an adrenaline rush that results from frantic attempts to stay alive, like aRPGs often do - I don't think you can do without it.

I largely agree with the 'simulation of reality' angle, as I can think of a few situations in RT that would have to have some complex rulesets attached to be fairly represented (not 'abstracted') in TB.

 

[prodigydancer]

RTwP happened to be a step in that change.

There's little in common between action (pure RT) and RTwP gameplay. In fact RTwP is a bit of a misnomer because if you use pause extensively, there's very little RT in that combat.

---

The return of TB doesn't mean that RTwP is a thing of the past. In general, RTwP is superior but it's also harder to program and debug which leads to more expensive development and QA. A simplistic TB implementation is a cheaper alternative and most modern TB games are relatively low budget.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Yes ect. indeed. You named 13 RPGs 9 of whom were made in the 2000s Bioware/Black Isle days. The other 4 are direct or spiritual successors of some kind to the 9.

Your post is the textbook example of trying too hard to fit in. Kindly fuck off and start over from scratch with another alt.

Underrated post.

 

[Mustawd]

To answer the OP, there two reasons you would make your game RTwP:
1. You get to call yourself a "spiritual successor" of something or another, although this scam has gotten too old by now in order to work again, or at least I hope it has. I'm pretty sure that SCL will be the last game we'll see in the "spiritual successor"-genre, because it will suck too bad and because the people whose money you can milk by calling your game a "spiritual successor" have largely been burned too many times or have died off.

2. When your game has a pause button you can automatically boast a longer time needed to complete the campaign.

I think this is probably a really good explanation, as Bioware can be faulted/credited with a lot of the RTwP RPGs out there. Although, one can also point to some tactical squad games that used the RTwP mechanic. Jagged Alliance: Back in Action comes to mind as well as the slew of UFO (XCOM wanna bes) games. Being that squad tactical games and party RPGs share some combat mechanics in common, one can argue that there's some merit in RTwP beyond the IE game beginnings.

Anyway, just want to reiterate that I didn't make the thread for TB > RTwP arguments (although my TB fanboyism got the best of me a few times). More like just pondering the evolution of RTwP in RPGs in general.

 

[Mustawd]

Have been watching the RT/RTwP vs TB talk for a while on these forums.

For some reason, I don't see it mentioned often that these two types allow for completely different combat strategies. The simplest of examples would be, say, a proximity mine in X-com, which blows up once a unit approaches it.

In TB, it means that 95% of the time the proximity mine would only hit a single target, because in TB the core premise is that you always move one unit at a time.
In RT, a group of units can move simultaneously, which means that a well-placed proximity mine could cripple a potential zerg rush if a bunch of units run over it all at once.
As a result, the circumstances and the way in which you would use these mines would differ vastly depending on whether you play a TB or an RT game.

I remember seeing a thread on inxile or obsidian forums which was devoted to these kinds of differences - different strategies that are feasible in one style that do not translate to the other easily, or at all. I wonder if anyone can link to it. That seems to me a lot more worthy of discussion than the usual shitfest of 'popamole' vs 'boring'.

To answer the OP - I don't have the reflexes to play games in RT anymore, and with the amount of complexity RPG usually have an option to pause and think about your next step is appreciated. As for why not go for TB from the start - not everything translates well in TB.

I think those are fair points. And I do recall seeing discussion on how you can't just add enough pauses to equal TB. Which was what someone wanted to do on the Codex Dev forum. They wanted to do both, RTwP and TB, not understanding that balance, AI, spells, attacks, etc. each has its own flavor under the distinct systems.

Really, I wouldn't mind RTwP so much if it just didn't seem to obliterate the TB games. I think that's basically where a lot of TB fans are coming from when they shit on RTwP.

 

[Mustawd]

There's little in common between action (pure RT) and RTwP gameplay. In fact RTwP is a bit of a misnomer because if you use pause extensively, there's very little RT in that combat.

If you think about it, outside of TB and RTwP, it becomes very hard to manage a party of 4 or more. I mean most of the RT RPGs are mainly only one player right? Every ARPG ever, Gothic/Risen, Two Worlds, Elder Scrolls, Dark Souls series. The exception here is Fallout 3, but that shit is meant to be played like a regular FPS. Fuck VATS.

So it makes sense that RTwp might survive outside of BG clones/muh nostalgia and Bioware. Come to think about it, has there ever been a party based crpg that wasn't TB or RTwP? Was M&B party based? I never playe dit...

 

[Mustawd]

Just go to the source.

I'm bored now. You can find more yourself.

 

[pippin]

So it makes sense that RTwp might survive outside of BG clones/muh nostalgia and Bioware. Come to think about it, has there ever been a party based crpg that wasn't TB or RTwP? Was M&B party based? I never playe dit...

You can hire many heroes in Mount and Blade, but you will be mostly recruiting nameless meatshields as often as you can. There's tons of stats involved, but I'd say it's more like a weird mix between Total War and Darklands, a strategy rpg with management and combat simulation instead of a "pure" rpg.

 

[Mustawd]

You can hire many heroes in Mount and Blade, but you will be mostly recruiting nameless meatshields as often as you can. There's tons of stats involved, but I'd say it's more like a weird mix between Total War and Darklands, a strategy rpg with management and combat simulation instead of a "pure" rpg.

So I guess the answer is: RTwP will be relevant until part AI progresses far enough that micromanaging every party member is unnecessary.

 

[prodigydancer]

More like just pondering the evolution of RTwP in RPGs in general.

The problem is that, sadly, there's no such thing as evolution of RTwP because evolution implies persistence.

Historically RTwP was a BioWare thing. Innovations did not persist because after BG2 BioWare started to lose their passion for innovation and under EA this process only accelerated. DA:O was their last serious attempt at making an actual RTwP CRPG but even things they implemented there could not be preserved because there was no-one around to pick up the torch when BioWare switched to ARPGs and MMOs.

As for Obsidian - they simply don't innovate. They're hopelessly stuck in the 90s and early 2000s. Maybe I'll sound a bit like Sensuki here but (despite being positive towards PoE in general) I see how PoE combat was a huge setback for RTwP evolution. All they could come up with was HP/Endurance system - a terrible idea. Resurrecting AoO in the form of Melee Engagement was even worse. And that's instead of adopting any good elements from MOBAs, modern TB games (e.g. D:OS), modern RTwP games (e.g. Arrklash) or MMOs. PoE is a good game by itself but as a part of the big picture it's a disaster.

Really, I wouldn't mind RTwP so much if it just didn't seem to obliterate the TB games.

But in reality that never happened. Although studios that made classic TB games indeed went out of business, it had nothing to with RTwP whatsoever. Some went down because of mismanagement (e.g. Black Isle, a as part of Interplay). Others couldn't find publishers for their projects anymore (e.g. Troika). Publishers don't care about combat systems, they care about money. So they switched to ARPGs and then to MMOs as those were new and more lucrative markets. And crowdfunding wasn't invented yet.

 

[Nevill]

RTwP will be relevant as long as you want to have direct control over party-based combat. Not everyone wants to watch the game play itself.

Besides, if you are going to have lots of options, even a game where you only control a single character might not be a stranger to pause.

I haven't played Skyrim, but doesn't it pause the game when you go into an inventory screen? I imagine with 9000+ items it would be fairly hard to navigate otherwise.

 

[AwesomeButton]

I think this is probably a really good explanation, as Bioware can be faulted/credited with a lot of the RTwP RPGs out there. Although, one can also point to some tactical squad games that used the RTwP mechanic. Jagged Alliance: Back in Action comes to mind as well as the slew of UFO (XCOM wanna bes) games. Being that squad tactical games and party RPGs share some combat mechanics in common, one can argue that there's some merit in RTwP beyond the IE game beginnings.

Anyway, just want to reiterate that I didn't make the thread for TB > RTwP arguments (although my TB fanboyism got the best of me a few times). More like just pondering the evolution of RTwP in RPGs in general.

I think ever since Skyrim became a hit, there is a tendency for games which we wouldn't call RPGs to start calling themselves RPGs and for developers superficially imitate an RPG through adding stats and XP to action games. Besides being fashionable, adding so called "RPG elements" is an attempt at gamification techniques, added on top of something that's already supposed to be a game. This is something that comes naturally with digital distribution and games being connected to cloud services - you already have "badges" in the form of "achievements", so why not add "points" and call it XP and then leaderboards, to promote your game further by players posting their progress.

This strapping on of "RPG elements" for the sake of having some sort of stats plus going for "open world" when your budget allows it are I think influences from Skyrim upon games which used to be "simple" action games. It's difficult to prove causation of course.

 

[Roguey]

I haven't played Skyrim, but doesn't it pause the game when you go into an inventory screen? I imagine with 9000+ items it would be fairly hard to navigate otherwise.

Yup. It also pauses when you open your favorites menu to switch weapons/spells/etc. You can "play fairly" by binding such things to hotkeys and using them in real time, but Bethesda decided that's not a demand they want to force you to endure.

 

[Keldryn]

So it makes sense that RTwp might survive outside of BG clones/muh nostalgia and Bioware. Come to think about it, has there ever been a party based crpg that wasn't TB or RTwP? Was M&B party based? I never playe dit...

Yes. Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, and everything else that followed in DM's footsteps. You didn't have to move each party member individually, but you had to manage their attacks, spells, and items in real time.

 

[Mustawd]

Yes. Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, and everything else that followed in DM's footsteps. You didn't have to move each party member individually, but you had to manage their attacks, spells, and items in real time.

Yeah I forgot about the RT blobbers. I like blobbers ok, but only really ever played turn-based.

But to your point, the fact that these were blobbers and had unified movement probably added to the ability to use RT. I think to have a party based RT RPG with discrete movement for each character it'd almost have to have the perfect UI. Gameplay would probably similar to an RTS but more emphasis on micromanaging. As it stands, SCL can be played RT, but that's just more of the "click and watch everyone die" gameplay.

EDIT: I think the comparison to SCL I'm thinking of is like Gauntlet with a party.

 

[Perkel]

The amount of trash mobs developer decides to put in their game has nothing to do with the combat system. Also, good developers include speed-sliders in their games so combat doesn't last forever.

Bull fucking shit. Every RTwP game has ton of trash mobs precisely because RTwP allows for it.
Turn based games don't allow for (unless developer is shit) it and usually there are no trash mobs.

Divinity OS is perfect example of that. Game could have trash mobs but it doesn't and game comes from larian known from trash mobs.

 

[prodigydancer]

Divinity OS is perfect example of that. Game could have trash mobs but it doesn't

...but hopefully not.

 

[Nevill]

Turn based games don't allow for (unless developer is shit) it and usually there are no trash mobs.

It's not like they don't allow for it, they just make the process of their disposal more tedious.

Fallout 1-2, Arcanum - or, of the latest installments, Shadowrun - all have trash mobs that you mow down without breaking a sweat. Obviously, those are shit games with shit developers - in an Ideal Turn-Based Game those microissues would never have been present.

Then again, one man's rat-infested vault cave is another's setpiece encounter.

 

[Sensuki]

All combat systems - TB, RT/wP and phase-based stuff can all be good, it just depends on whether the systems take advantage of the medium. Most combat systems do not.

 

[Roguey]

usually there are no trash mobs.

News to me. Most turn based games have trash. Sometimes there are pacing reasons for this, sometimes not.

...but hopefully not.

I concur with the original statement here, almost every fight in D:OS demanded a lot of attention and good playing from me. This actually became a bad thing in the phantom forest, which is why I skipped a good chunk of those final battles.

 

[Perkel]

easy enemies =/= trash mobs

Trash mobs are literally filler. NWN1 is the best case scenario for this. Every level is just filled to brim with mobs that are easy (yes) but they don't have any other design behind them than "let's plop here some trash mobs)
Yes there are cases where RTwP don't have trash mobs but on average RTwP do have way more trash mobs than turn based games.

Problems with trash mobs are simply 10x more visible if you choose turn based combat thus why designers avoid it in TB games.

 

[Sensuki]

yeah trash mobs usually = copy&paste lazy design (or random encounters of easy groups of enemies).

 

[Jimmious]

I think the main issue with this conversation is that while it is highly informed and detailed, most of its participants seem to consider that the success and fame of a game these days is related to intricate combat engine details like the Engagement system of PoE. In reality the majority of people that played the game probably just noticed nice music, kewlish graphs and of course....OH WOW THIS IS LIKE BG.
So yeah, RTwP did well with this one, a lot of people played it and a lot of people consider it as a BG successor, a successful one too. The engine flaws etc are for us in nerdy fora to discuss