Game News WTF - Pillars of Eternity II is apparently getting a turn-based mode

[Quillon]

But why implement a Turn-Based system at this point? The game lost its momentum months ago.

They have the money to throw around on vanity projects.

Do they have the talent to make this work? I don't think so.

Meh, its fucking TB, compared RTwP this should be a cakewalk for them.

 

[passerby]

With low enough difficulty and right amount of automation you can make RTwP play itself, this is why RTwP is popular in games made for retards. But saying TB is superior, because RTwP is popular choice for shit games is a logical fallacy.

With good PC RTS grade user interface and the same ruleset, RTwP is superior by design:
1) There is no problem with units gang rape destroying other units, without player/computer having any chance to respond, so there is no need to introduce obscure and convulted interruption, overwatch, attacks of opportunity, or "brilliant" Larian style initiative rules.
2) There is another layer of depth around timing and synchronising actions: anticipating where enemies could go in the next few seconds and dropping fireball there, stepping asisde so caster can throw cone spell and then stepping back to pretect him, etc.
3) Thanks to synchronous execution of actions and automation of the more mundane tasks, the same encounter takes 10 times less to resolve, saving your real world fucking time - the only finite and constantly running out resource in your real life.

Now simpletons that get short circuits in their brains, if they are not guided through combat gameplay one easy baby step at a time, will be able to play too. Enjoy your trash mobs in TB

 

[taxalot]

Add this to POE1 for consistency.

 

[Safav Hamon]

Unless they also fix the boring encounter design and itemization, turn-based wont save the first game.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Awesome stuff written here.

I agree, PoE2 is going to be the best game of all time at this rate.

Those are not my words. Certainly not from this thread. My honor is besmirched, Sir! Choose your weapons!

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Ya’ll remember Wizard’s Crown/Eternal Dagger and the “quick combat?” It did calculations then gave you the results with no animation. They could just stack that in if there is tbc.

You start combat & asked y/n to a quickie. If Yes, then fade to black and either success or defeat and then you see your lovely casualties. Hell, don’t have time QC all the time. Every game needs that. Let the shitty AI do your gaming combat for you.


Ok, I’m going to watch a vid on POE. Game sounds like a RTS or something? Or is it a diablo button masher? Party-based MMORPG-like with hot keys? Fuck if I know. Maybe it’s like angry birds.


Edit....


Oh. So that’s the combat. Tbh, I didn’t play BG, Nwn, or IWD either or planescape. I had them but my computer broke and I was stuck with an old 486 for another decade. Hey! Taxes and bills man! They suck you dry.

 

[Delterius]

Awesome stuff written here.

I agree, PoE2 is going to be the best game of all time at this rate.

Those are not my words. Certainly not from this thread. My honor is besmirched, Sir! Choose your weapons!

You call me a liar!? I cast fist.

 

[hexer]

Cool! Now, how about another Christmas miracle - a patch that replaces the entire plot?

 

[Mychkine]

Going to wait for it before I play the game I guess. I just never liked RTS games...

 

[Witold Petriczek]

Oh man, don't tell me that I'll be able to `Fallout 2` through this game !!!! \o/

 

[Metro]

Turn based? Might actually be playable then.

 

[Ein Axt]

Any ETA on this?

 

[thesheeep]

I don't know what to think.

On one hand, TB is inherently better for games like these as it actually allows to have some strategy that doesn't depend on how many thousand hotkeys you can press per second.
On the other hand, the game was so easy in real-time and most encounters didn't require you to pause often anyway. So what would TB really add here?

It will be interesting to see what it does to the game, anyway, if only as a study in game design.

 

[passerby]

TB is inherently better for games like these as it actually allows to have some strategy that doesn't depend on how many thousand hotkeys you can press per second.

Would be true, if not for 'with pause' part of RTwP.

 

[Elhoim]

On the other hand, the game was so easy in real-time and most encounters didn't require you to pause often anyway. So what would TB really add here?

I think it would be interesting to try it at a hard difficulty level.

 

[Maculo]

I don't know what to think.

On one hand, TB is inherently better for games like these as it actually allows to have some strategy that doesn't depend on how many thousand hotkeys you can press per second.
On the other hand, the game was so easy in real-time and most encounters didn't require you to pause often anyway. So what would TB really add here?

It will be interesting to see what it does to the game, anyway, if only as a study in game design.

Personally, I see TB as a means to slow down the pace of combat and to provide an additional challenge. The challenge being that late-game creatures will survive longer than 5 seconds, provided Obsidian implements a proper initiative system. Late-game balance will never be perfect, but TB seems like a step in the right direction.

What I look forward to is combining TB, Galawain's challenge, and Woedica's challenge. Galawain's challenge causes each beast encounter to have random buffs, such as constant regeneration or top tier statline buffs. Woedica's challenge makes spells and abilities per rest again.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Turn-based combat has only two real advantages over RTwP:

1. Initiative is better and more easily represented.
2. Special actions which take place outside the normal rules and flow of combat, like "attacks of opportunity", "epic actions", etc. This is because in a TB system, time is completely abstracted, whereas in RTwP, time cannot be.

That's it. Literally everything else TB does RTwP can do better. It's much more difficult to design a system this way as the calculus become multi-variable, but it is still inherently superior. Even those two items above can be approached pretty closely with the right design, leaving the benefits of TB almost nil.

 

[thesheeep]

TB is inherently better for games like these as it actually allows to have some strategy that doesn't depend on how many thousand hotkeys you can press per second.

Would be true, if not for 'with pause' part of RTwP.

Constantly disrupt the flow of the game artificially, just to keep up with what is happening. Yes, that is great fun...
Before you try and come with the argument that TB constantly interrupts - it doesn't, the turn-order is not an interruption of the natural flow of the game, it IS the natural flow of the game. Pausing is not part of any inherent gameplay flow. Not once did I feel any interruption due to turns progressing, while pausing in real-time games always feels like interrupting (which isn't surprising, given that it is the purpose).

Yes, there are battles in TB games that would be much better in real time, but that is due to bad encounter design, not due to an imaginary flaw in TB games.

And there are also games that are just more fun in real time. I wouldn't like to play something like Morrowind turn-based, that would be horrible.
But for games that are supposed to be tactical, turn-based is king.

On the other hand, the game was so easy in real-time and most encounters didn't require you to pause often anyway. So what would TB really add here?

I think it would be interesting to try it at a hard difficulty level.

I was talking about the hard difficulty levels...

 

[passerby]

Lots of "feels", zero logic in this rant, there is nothing to argue in the whole first paragraph. I'll comment on these two, since they're related.

But for games that are supposed to be tactical, turn-based is king.

Turn-based combat has only two real advantages over RTwP:

1. Initiative is better and more easily represented.
2. Special actions which take place outside the normal rules and flow of combat, like "attacks of opportunity", "epic actions", etc. This is because in a TB system, time is completely abstracted, whereas in RTwP, time cannot be.

The essential component of real life combat tactic is time management and coordination between units. In basic TB these elements simply do not exist, while in RT they do because it's an accurate simulation of reality basically.
Initiative, attacks of opportunity, interruptions, overwatch etc. are all convulted mechanics introduced in order to poorly simulate realtime tactics in TB system.
Their role is to interrupt flow of the game, to give you possibility to issue additional orders, or automatically inject some acions, just like active pause in RT btw.

All these are handled much better, by simply being realtime:
Initiative ? - unit that can swing sword faster hits first.
Opportunity attack, interruption, overwatch ? - unit run in the open, or is running by front row fighter to get second row caster ? - simply order your units to attack, or they attack automatically based on stance, if they're not occupied with another action.
There are tactical stunts that can be performed in RT, that are simply impossible to recreate in TB.
There are exploits that are only possible because of limited nature of TB time simulation, that TB gamepley usually degenerate towards, instead of tactics that would be feasible in reality.

Claiming that TB is intrinsically more tactical is retarded, because opposite is the truth. All arguments of TB fanatics, always boil down to: there is too much happening at once for me to comfortably handle.
While in TB it's simple: one unit to order - pick action from taskbar, click on enemy - something awesome happens - nothing can get in the way in the meantime.

Of course perfect and deep RTwP tactic games don't exists, because good, deeper than nuXCOM TB game, is already too much to handle for 95% of gamers.
The inability to argue about systems with logic and resorting to anecdotal evidence of games I liked vs games I didn't like, only supports simple minded folks theory.

But if you want ancdotal evidence... Good tactical squad shooter is more tactically deep, than Fallout 1 combat.
Infinity Engine games combat is not a good example of RT vs TB within same ruleset.
Because it was in fact hybrid system ( there were 6s rounds and order and amount of actions was dictated by usual D&D rules, not by time of issuing orders), repositioning, or changing order mid turn resulted in wasted action and waiting for the next turn.
That was responsible for unresponsive clusterfuck feel, if you didn't realise and paid attention to that. It was similar to W8 phase combat, but with animations played simultaneously and RT positioning.
But even then, if you played it properly, you could play exactly same encounter as in turns, but resolve it 10x faster and had much more dense experience, while pure turns would serve only to waste your time and bore you.
Unless you are too slow, to process more than one information at a time that is. Short version: D&D is convulted mess, but that aside, I had way more fun with BG2 combat, than with ToEE.

 

[Drowed]

The biggest advantage of turn-based games is that the combat events happen... Wait for it... In turns. Shocking, isn't it?

I can't believe I need to explain the difference it makes here, on Codex, of all places. Turn-based games are inherently and completely different from real-time games, with or without pause, for the simple fact that the actions happen in sequence. I do my thing. Then the enemy does his thing. Then another enemy. Then I again, and so on. Real-time games are games where actions are happening at the same time - even in games that try to use abstractions like rounds, because those rounds can happen simultaneously. You have situations where two or more actions will happen "at the same time," such as two characters attacking each other, or a character throwing a fireball at the same time you summon some spell.

This difference means that turn-based games (when done well) are games with a strong emphasis on the predictive decisions, while real-time games have a major focus on reactive decisions. In other words, in a turn-based game you can decide to walk and move your character up to a certain point in the map, but if you chose the location badly, you are essentially instantly fucked because the enemy will destroy you in the next turn. (Experience that fans of series like X-Com know very well.) In a real-time game, you can change your mind every moment. If you clicked on your character to move to a certain place, you essentially have all the time until he moves to that place to change your mind.

But not only that, in a turn-based game, as you move, the combat situation is essentially frozen: enemy actions will not change and nothing will happen until you decide to finalize your action and allow everything to continue. But in real-time games, events will change continuously. Using the same example above, when your character walk to a certain point on the map, in a turn based game all that happens is that he will walk to that place. But in a real-time game, at any time the enemies can start new actions, cancel old actions and change the path they were going. That's why real-time gaming is essentially reactive, because you are constantly reacting to changes that are occurring in the game in real time and changing your choices. Turn-based games aren't so, because they focus on your ability to plan and predict what will happen in the game, rather than react to what is happening.

I'm not saying RTWP games cannot be fun or interesting and have good challenge or whatever, I'm saying that the difference is obvious and enormous.

 

[passerby]

Well, I understand difference perfectly fine and I couldn't agree more with your description, which is roughly the same as what I wrote.
The point is, that majority here consider TB superior and I consider RTwP superior and both parties think so for the same reasons

I engage in this discussion like two times a year and always get tons of retarded, wtf, facepalm etc. ratings each time I describe Infinity Engine clusterfuck.
The point is that some of criticisms leveled against IE games wouldn't apply to a proper RTwP game, but some people don't even understand how the games they play work.
I'll have to skip that part next time, it only muddles the message.

 

[thesheeep]

The essential component of real life combat tactic is time management and coordination between units. In basic TB these elements simply do not exist, while in RT they do because it's an accurate simulation of reality basically.

Who gives a shit what happens in real life?
We're talking about games here.

If you want a most realistic simulation of a battlefield, then of course real-time is the way to go. Duh!
Are real-time games closer to what a general on an actual battlefield would do? Maybe. Probably. I don't really know, but I'd be interested.
The point is that it doesn't matter.

If you want to play simulations, play simulations. That's what they are for.
I don't care for simulations, I care for games that allow tactical gameplay without constantly needing to pause (which, btw, is not possible in real life...). To be presented with way more tactical challenges and situations to solve than what would ever happen in a real-time game. For choices to have way more tangible consequences because they cannot be undone or reserved in a split-second, as Drowed explained so well.
Imagine chess players being able to "decide otherwise" halfway into a move

 

[passerby]

Yes, I'm interested in tactics and versimilitude in my tactics games. If I wanted to play abstract puzzle I'd indeed prefer chess.
No choice in RTwP can be undone once it's executed what are you talking about ? Just "resolution" of possible command imput points is higher.

Turn based RPG combat most of the time degenerates into abusing abstract system to destroy enemy unit before his turn come. Best example of this from recently played games is Geneforge series.
During your turn destroy/crowd control enough enemies, so they don't have enough damage output to destroy any of your tank units in a single turn when their move come, finish them in the second turn - 80% of cambat. Just making it RTwP would make it not as simple.

Why some better TB games introduce all these convulted interruptions, attacks of opportunity, initiative, overwatch and similar rules ?
To poorly emulate natural in RTwP ability to respond to enemy actions while they unfold.

TB is like action games that locks you into long uninterruptable animations for any action.
Anyway, the main reason I can't into combat heavy TB rpgs anymore is wasting time and getting bored to death, while watching animations and movements one unit at a time.
The fact that RTwP allows more complex tactics and control over combat is an icing on the cake.

 

[Riddler]

The biggest advantage of turn-based games is that the combat events happen... Wait for it... In turns. Shocking, isn't it?

I can't believe I need to explain the difference it makes here, on Codex, of all places. Turn-based games are inherently and completely different from real-time games, with or without pause, for the simple fact that the actions happen in sequence. I do my thing. Then the enemy does his thing. Then another enemy. Then I again, and so on. Real-time games are games where actions are happening at the same time - even in games that try to use abstractions like rounds, because those rounds can happen simultaneously. You have situations where two or more actions will happen "at the same time," such as two characters attacking each other, or a character throwing a fireball at the same time you summon some spell.

This difference means that turn-based games (when done well) are games with a strong emphasis on the predictive decisions, while real-time games have a major focus on reactive decisions. In other words, in a turn-based game you can decide to walk and move your character up to a certain point in the map, but if you chose the location badly, you are essentially instantly fucked because the enemy will destroy you in the next turn. (Experience that fans of series like X-Com know very well.) In a real-time game, you can change your mind every moment. If you clicked on your character to move to a certain place, you essentially have all the time until he moves to that place to change your mind.

But not only that, in a turn-based game, as you move, the combat situation is essentially frozen: enemy actions will not change and nothing will happen until you decide to finalize your action and allow everything to continue. But in real-time games, events will change continuously. Using the same example above, when your character walk to a certain point on the map, in a turn based game all that happens is that he will walk to that place. But in a real-time game, at any time the enemies can start new actions, cancel old actions and change the path they were going. That's why real-time gaming is essentially reactive, because you are constantly reacting to changes that are occurring in the game in real time and changing your choices. Turn-based games aren't so, because they focus on your ability to plan and predict what will happen in the game, rather than react to what is happening.

I'm not saying RTWP games cannot be fun or interesting and have good challenge or whatever, I'm saying that the difference is obvious and enormous.

I think this comes down to player skill to great degree. Are there major reactive elements in games like CS or Dota? Absolutely, but how does one react to things successfully? By planning and predicting enemy actions.

Playing purely reactively is the realm of the bad to mediocre player. The good player is always planning.

That most people can't manage to play and think at the same time is a whole other matter of course and most people play both the mentioned games as an almost purely reactive experience (oh no! They ganked my lane! How could one ever have predicted this?!).

 

[Drowed]

I think this comes down to player skill to great degree. Are there major reactive elements in games like CS or Dota? Absolutely, but how does one react to things successfully? By planning and predicting enemy actions.

Playing purely reactively is the realm of the bad to mediocre player. The good player is always planning.

That most people can't manage to play and think at the same time is a whole other matter of course and most people play both the mentioned games as an almost purely reactive experience (oh no! They ganked my lane! How could one ever have predicted this?!).

I get what you're saying and agree to a point, but I still believe there is a significant difference here.

Yeah, virtually every game will require some level of tactics and strategy. In fighting games, for example, when choosing a specific character, you need to be aware of his moves, the range of the punchs an kicks, the priority of his attacks (which attacks cancel certain other attacks), and so on. A good Street Fighter player will not simply push the buttons faster, and will not only respond to the enemy's attacks, but he will intentionally try to direct the fight to a more advantageous situation for him, in addition to analyzing the way his enemy will act based on his choice of character and moves. This same principle applies to shooting games, in relation to positioning, map knowledge and awareness, weapons choice and many other things. Rapid reflexes only take you up to a point.

Even so, the fundamental difference of all these action games is that their strategy and tactics are also reactive based. You may have a bigger specific plan in your mind, but being able to change and adapt on the fly is what characterizes a good player. You actually have dozens of plans and assumptions about the flow of the game and you are adapting your strategy depending on the direction the events are taking. Taking DOTA as an example, your game plan will change a lot depending on the items your opponent chooses, the way he plays and who will be in the same lane as you. And all of this information may change from occurring.

And this holds true for both multiplayer and singleplayer games in most cases. In fact, it's the multiplayer aspect that ends up blurring the lines to some extent - and perhaps it deserves a greater reflection, but it's not the point that we are discussing here.

Turn-based games, specifically single-player ones, are quite similar to puzzles. Obviously they are puzzles with bigger "borders" and pieces that aren't so defined, but usually, the combat is a scenario where there are specific solutions. A good fight isn't usually one where you play and adapts your decisions at every turn, but one in which you have a bigger plan and execute it with precision (sometimes praying that the RGN's gods will not fuck you). The greatest satisfaction in a turn-based game is to put together a strategy for the whole fight and see it to perfection. And, like in every puzzle, once you find "the solution" to it, you have an answer that you can use every time in the future. You can then try to find other answers, since sometimes the games is open enough for this, but a strategy that worked once will work 95% of the time, in the same situation.

So the kind of satisfaction you get out of the game, and especially the kind of thinking and strategy you use in a turn-based game is by nature quite different from the kind you use in a real-time game. Most games require thought and strategy, but not all require the same kind.