PDA

View Full Version : Reasons why a turnbased game made by Soldak would rock!


DeathKnight1728
01-24-2011, 12:53 PM
I have been getting into the turnbased games as gog is killing me with releasing the krondor series. I personally dont find the graphics of roleplaying games as important. I find that the gameplay is what matters more. Its like life sort of. You cant judge people by appearance, (even though a lot of people do). I came to the conclusion that if steven was to eventually make a turnbased game, it would rock. With the graphics of dins and dop, and the immersion of a roleplaying game and turnbased combat, I'd be one happy camper. I never really thought i would get into the turnbased games but im liking them alot. Just so long as soldak strays far from eschalon series (so to make the game diverse and unique), I couldnt complain.

udm
01-24-2011, 07:19 PM
A TB game by Soldak would definitely be worth looking out for. There's still a lot of creativity that can be done into the genre, before the market gets milked dry. Just look at Darkwind's combination of TB strategy and physics.

Bluddy
01-25-2011, 09:01 AM
I'd say either a TB or a RT with pause (RTwP) game like the Infinity engine would be great. The problem is that a game with a long plot takes a long time (and therefore many resources) to develop, and also you can't really have an open beta since then everyone will know the plot. Additionally, it's crucial for a small company to have all the resources and infrastructure ready from previous games, as SpiderWeb games does. Then, all you have to do is work on the story and interactions while reusing the resources from before. Soldak currently has no infrastructure for this kind of game (other than a game world), and it will take a while to develop them.

In any case, to shorten development time and make things interesting, Soldak should do something like DoP ie. have a general plot with many random elements. Imagine Baldur's Gate with random dungeons, random towns, and many random quests. There could be many static parts: the big quests will be static, the main characters would be static (though perhaps their identity/race could change). But big chunks of the game would be randomly generated.

pnakotus
01-25-2011, 07:06 PM
Is there any compelling reason for a game to be turn-based beyond whining about 'reflexes' and 'kids with their darn quick thinking'?

abomination5
01-25-2011, 07:33 PM
I'm a fan of turn based games but I'd like to see Soldak do 20 more expansions for DC first. :D

DeathKnight1728
01-26-2011, 12:54 AM
Is there any compelling reason for a game to be turn-based beyond whining about 'reflexes' and 'kids with their darn quick thinking'?

Its true that games like dins define reflexes and quick thinking, but turnbased games require a lot of patience and strategy. I used to hate turnbased games for many reasons but recently a few of them have been a lot of fun for me and i have given them more of a chance. To sum it up-i dont care if soldak makes a turnbased, so long as there is a story that really makes me feel like im reading a book. Thats what making a true roleplaying game is about. The one problem i always have with action/rpgs is i have a lot of fun for a month or two or more and then i say-this is boring- there is no story in this. Then i stop and get dragged back into something with a story. Thats the one thing keeping me away from d3 is that while the action will be intense, without a compelling story-what have you learned or gained. Truth be told, there are almost no action/rpgs with a compelling story. (Arpgs meaning diablo 1 and 2, dungeon siege, baldurs gate dark alliance 1 and 2, morrowind, oblivion, lionheart, sacred, etc.)

A few games i have found with a good story and a lot of fast paced action are-vampire the masquerade:redemption (not bloodlines), arx fatalis, arcanum, jade empire, and kotor 1 (not 2). Most other games ive played dont drag me into the world when it comes to storyline. The reason i didnt mention bg1, 2, icewind dale, planescape torment and others is because they are a different kind of rpg and more towards storyline with strategy elements.

Bluddy
01-26-2011, 03:22 AM
Just to add to DeathKnight's answer, there are certain things that can be done with a realtime combat engine, and certain things that can't.

Divine Divinity demonstrated how an ARPG could have full object interaction similar to Ultima 7 (where you could bake bread if you felt like it by making dough and sticking it in an oven). Vampire Redemption married an ARPG to a full blown story (albeit a completely linear one). Arcanum made a switchable system where you could play either turn based or real-time, but the real-time part was pretty much a flop, though the game itself is a non-linear classic. And of course Oblivion and Morrowind put you in a huge world to explore with realtime combat. These are almost all of the different directions you can go in an RPG.

The thing you can't do with realtime combat is fight a battle with real tactics and many skills/spells. For example, in a game like Diablo, if you have too many skills or items to place in your hotkey slots -- good luck trying to use them in time. Diablo style games also throw many enemies at you to keep the action intense, while games like fallout (the original) throw fewer enemies with better smarts to challenge you, or they might make the main character weaker and have to use sneaky tactics to get out of a sticky situation.

However, what you can *never* do well with realtime is control a full party of characters with tactics. There's just no way to manage several characters and their items, skills and spells all at the same time. Even realtime with pause (as in Baldur's Gate) can get overwhelming, unless you have the AI take over for some of the party in which case the game loses its strategy.

Of the choices for turn-based styles, the latest 'in' direction happens to be phase-based rather than turn-based (as demonstrated in games such as Combat Mission and Flotilla), and I think this is where Soldak should go, since it's very similar to realtime yet much more strategic.

udm
01-26-2011, 06:55 AM
Is there any compelling reason for a game to be turn-based beyond whining about 'reflexes' and 'kids with their darn quick thinking'?
The most fundamental reason is the ability to play the game at your own pace, or at least a slower one, and having time to crunch some numbers and filter through the best choices.

On a deeper level of analysis, this presumably has more than just superficial implications. For one, because of the influences of pace, the mood of the game also adapts and changes. Less pressure to think on the fly also means the ability to better appreciate the moment of the situation, though I speak of this more personally rather than for anyone else. Assuming that real time is inherently superior over turn based is a transitive fallacy, in the same way as assuming that first person shooters supercede games with the top-down view, or that comics are better than novels.

Games like Starcraft, with the cream of the crop of the fanbase boasting hundreds of APM per minute, are evidences that real time and quick reflexes can go hand-in-hand, but I doubt it's possible with games like Panzer General or Might & Magic, where such manoeuvres could potentially compromise the core gameplay mechanics due to streamlining. Don't be mistaken though, despite what I said, this doesn't necessarily imply the given that all turn based games have more depth.

Shadow
01-26-2011, 10:00 AM
The thing you can't do with realtime combat is fight a battle with real tactics and many skills/spells. For example, in a game like Diablo, if you have too many skills or items to place in your hotkey slots -- good luck trying to use them in time.

This was basically what I was going to say. I probably wouldn't use as strong of a word as can't though.

Right now at least, if we did a turn based rpg I think I would want it to be party based and very tactical. I still remember spells like fireball in the gold box games very fondly, very powerful but you could easily kill your own people if you weren't being careful.

pnakotus
01-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Its true that games like dins define reflexes and quick thinking, but turnbased games require a lot of patience and strategy. I used to hate turnbased games for many reasons but recently a few of them have been a lot of fun for me and i have given them more of a chance. To sum it up-i dont care if soldak makes a turnbased, so long as there is a story that really makes me feel like im reading a book. Thats what making a true roleplaying game is about.

This is why Din's is popular; because it DOESN'T have this dimestore fanfic driven aspect.

The one problem i always have with action/rpgs is i have a lot of fun for a month or two or more and then i say-this is boring- there is no story in this.

Do you seriously think replaying a fixed story is interesting?

Then i stop and get dragged back into something with a story.

Oh dear.

The idea that you need turn based ot have 'tactics' or 'complex battles' is asinine; just slow the pace of battle through the mechanics and improve the interface. The Diablo interface most of these games inherit was never designed for anything but spamming powers, so its hardly surprising it doesn't work well in other areas.

'Crunch numbers' and 'filter through the best choices' = munchkin and save/load whore. Amazing, can we have more of this please for those who can't just press the pause button? :D

It amuses me no end that the end result of this is that people honestly think a Gold Box game has deeper, more thoughtful or sophisticated combat than (say) an MMO, which is utterly laughable. Turns out with mechanics designed for slower-paced battles, and interface designed with complex actions in mind, and a cut-throat environment of competition, you can STILL have more sophisticated combat than AD&D?

So lets talk about the problems with turn-based play (as distinct from the superior pausable-realtime): interrupts and action timing. Every turn based tactical game from Laser Squad on has various hackish mechanics to get around this stuff, but it's still present and was a giant lol in games like JA2 and Dark Queen of Krynn; when it's your turn, 90% of enemies will just stand around like idiots while you dick with inventory, scroll through spell lists, bring up splash templates, aim at 5 different parts of their body working out odds, etc. Almost none of these games reflect (say) reaction differences between larger or smaller weapons beyond '15% chance of interrupt'. Any game that lets your guys reload right in front of the enemy team without reaction (like Fallout, XCOM, etc) is fundamentally broken and stupid, and this is literally impossible in anything based on a clock instead of board-game legacy 'turns'.

DeathKnight1728
01-26-2011, 06:12 PM
ahahahaahahah

udm
01-27-2011, 12:37 AM
Of the choices for turn-based styles, the latest 'in' direction happens to be phase-based rather than turn-based (as demonstrated in games such as Combat Mission and Flotilla), and I think this is where Soldak should go, since it's very similar to realtime yet much more strategic.

You might want to check out Darkwind then. It does the phase-based aspect almost perfectly :)

Bluddy
01-27-2011, 04:21 AM
Do you seriously think replaying a fixed story is interesting?

With a game like Baldur's Gate 2 you get so much content you don't really need to replay it. Alternatively, a loose game like Fallout has a fixed story but so much openness to your choices that every time you play it it's different.


So lets talk about the problems with turn-based play (as distinct from the superior pausable-realtime): interrupts and action timing. Every turn based tactical game from Laser Squad on has various hackish mechanics to get around this stuff, but it's still present and was a giant lol in games like JA2 and Dark Queen of Krynn; when it's your turn, 90% of enemies will just stand around like idiots while you dick with inventory, scroll through spell lists, bring up splash templates, aim at 5 different parts of their body working out odds, etc. Almost none of these games reflect (say) reaction differences between larger or smaller weapons beyond '15% chance of interrupt'. Any game that lets your guys reload right in front of the enemy team without reaction (like Fallout, XCOM, etc) is fundamentally broken and stupid, and this is literally impossible in anything based on a clock instead of board-game legacy 'turns'.

Those are valid points. Turn based games are a compromise, and sometimes that compromise is too much. They try to approximate a realtime battle, but have many lapses. For example your guy can walk across the screen but the enemy may not be able to react until his turn (or get one chance to react to you). Another problem is that they make every battle last a looong time, and that becomes silly for weak enemies.

At the same time, turn-based systems have advantages. They make you highly aware of every single thing your character does. Every time you hit an enemy you can notice if you hit him well. As an example, this information can allow you to decide if you should swap your piercing weapon for a crushing weapon to fight against creatures sensitive to certain weapons. You get time to process all the feedback that you get. .

Additionally, if we want to control multiple characters, turn-based is one of the few ways to have enough time to process all the information that each character has to deal with, while still maintaining direct control of the situation. Real-time with pause is of limited use because pause as you will, the attacks still happen simultaneously and controlling several characters spread across different areas is virtually impossible. Phase-based systems allow you to replay the last phases until you absorb all the information, but loss of control between input points means that the AI is the one carrying out many of the decisions.

DeathKnight1728
01-27-2011, 11:42 AM
The point is still being missed about mmo's, and that is that they have no absolute story, meaning it is just mindless bashing. No cool story, no cool characters in the world, just pointless smashing. Din's and dop is different from that however in that the world makes you get involved with it, no matter if you want to or not. With that, i dont think dins and dop need a story. However, there are very few other games that are action/rpgs that actually have a story instead of just something that anyone can put together. diablo 1 actually had a story. d2 did not. Divine divinity had an amazing story and great action to boot, a mix of both. Just because a game is addicting doenst mean it is great. Look at wow. It completely sucks. You will waste 8/10 of your life playing that game and for nothing. No story, no characters, no plot, nothing cool to remember it by. Only that "awesome, i just got my character to lvl 100, it took me 1 year and 45 days-i have no life" feeling.

abomination5
01-27-2011, 10:38 PM
The point is still being missed about mmo's, and that is that they have no absolute story, meaning it is just mindless bashing. No cool story, no cool characters in the world, just pointless smashing. Din's and dop is different from that however in that the world makes you get involved with it, no matter if you want to or not. With that, i dont think dins and dop need a story. However, there are very few other games that are action/rpgs that actually have a story instead of just something that anyone can put together. diablo 1 actually had a story. d2 did not. Divine divinity had an amazing story and great action to boot, a mix of both. Just because a game is addicting doenst mean it is great. Look at wow. It completely sucks. You will waste 8/10 of your life playing that game and for nothing. No story, no characters, no plot, nothing cool to remember it by. Only that "awesome, i just got my character to lvl 100, it took me 1 year and 45 days-i have no life" feeling.

WoW may not have an amazing story but it does have a detailed world that was quite immersive to me. Personally, I loved WoW. I only quit because high level raiding doesn't appeal to me (playing the exact same content over and over again).

I don't play games for the story. For me, immersion is more important.

DeathKnight1728
01-28-2011, 06:32 PM
The immersion and greatness in wow is its openness but mostly, the ability to play with a large (really large) amount of people. Trading, auctions, duels, challenges, quests, etc. are at your disposal. The classes are cool.

What i dont like are many things.

1) The controls. It took me forever to figure out the controls and i still think that they are difficult. What happened to the good old days with d2 where it was fairly simple to play. In wow, its the complete opposite, a key for everything. Not my taste. With din i get the ability to play an easily controlled game with fast tactics but an immersive world (without the regular scumbags that frequent the realm) I very rarely play din on multiplayer but the people on din are 100 times better than on d2 and any other blizzard multiplayer game.

2) Which leads me to my 2nd and more important reason why i dont like wow-the people. For some reason, whenever i play d2, or wow i am subjected to the biggest losers on the planet. You go into a game and ask a simple question on how to use a button, "noob, ubernoob." The people are also scumbags too and hack your account, trick you, steal from you. There are bots too which i dont even want to get into. Ultimately, the people on bnet as a whole suck. I would honestly laugh in any of these losers faces if they came down with cancer because as a whole, they are worthless as people.

abomination5
01-28-2011, 10:44 PM
2) Which leads me to my 2nd and more important reason why i dont like wow-the people.

I didn't like the atmosphere in the standard WoW servers either. That's why I played in a roleplay server. I found the players that to be much more considerate and polite.

DeathKnight1728
01-28-2011, 11:21 PM
Thats why i like dins singleplayer mode much better, its not that i hate people as a whole (although they do suck), it's just that i dont have to be subjegated to game name-potheads only, or i know how to dupe on d2 games. And on wow, 1 simple question turns into 10 sociopathic losers. With dins i can play single player most of the time, and if i want to play multiplayer i can too. The problem i had with d2 was though you can play singleplayer, its not nearly as fun as multi. And wow you only get multi. One of my friends told me that he would gladly pay $60 for the base d3 game and an extra 5$ a month for it if they used that extra money to go towards stopping hacks, dupes, bots, cheaters, maphack and anything else under the sun. I would support that if they did it. All of those things listed, slowed the game down and made it really annoying to play.

To get back on topic, I think that i can only truly play a roleplaying game if it has good action and a really really good story that draws me in, otherwise din's will be grab me back again.