RTwP is great for a Bioware-style RPG where you're liable to kill a hundred enemies before the prologue is even over. It allows you to bulldoze over random enemies without even thinking about it, which can keep the pace going in a game with a lot of meaningless combat. If combat is used sparingly, on the other hand, it can be hard to give it weight in a RTwP system where you can blink and Sarevok is already giving his death laugh. YMMV, but out and out combat was the least satisfying way to deal with the Transcendent One in PS:T, and I think RTwP played a role in that. Turn-based combat at the very least forces the player to take notice of it, which can be useful if the fight actually means something to the story and isn't just a speed bump designed to add to the gameplay time and shower some extra XP on the player.
Hopefully this thread lasts (unlike that other one). Anyways, I liked the combat in Kings Bounty: The Legend (and the expansion/games that followed it). So like I wrote earlier I guess we will have to see how its implemented.
Wasn't Worms meant to be played co-op or in multiplayer? And believe me, playing against/with a friend is way more fun than playing against a flawed computer AI.
Wasn't Worms meant to be played co-op or in multiplayer? And believe me, playing against/with a friend is way more fun than playing against a flawed computer AI.
Definitely. Only loners play against the computer. (Like me. ;_;)
It's beside the point, though. The point is that turn-based is infinitely superior and anyone that says otherwise will be given as a sacrifice to Bhaal.
Baldur's Gate RTwP system was revolutionary at the time and helped drive a lot of the interest in the game. Now 20 years later we go back to the the system that it replaced.
Madness? This is sparta.
Well, it's not revolutionary any more, and if it makes sense for the game and the setting, don't see why using turn based combat is necessarily a bad thing. nXile's reasoning was rather intriguing as to how they planned to implement.
Sure, it may be a bit retro, but you know what, the human race is rather retro-prone anyway.
Why would game developers change something their fans love only to make it worse? From their point of view this would just mean losses in sales.
It seems they've done just that in this case: a lot of people are upset they chose turn-based, and in the sake of fairness, I doubt that many would have cared if they had gone real-time with pause.
But I applaud them for that. They stick to their principles and make the game the best they can, in spite of it very possibly selling a few copies less that way.
The same amount of people would've complained if they went with real time. Poll said 50/50 when people voted.
They should go with what they feel is right and they did. The combat system is only a minor part of the game anyway, it's story and characters that should be important. Unless you really can't stand Turn Based to the point of ever being able to play a game that has pauses in action, there's really no reason to complain.
The same amount of people would've complained if they went with real time. Poll said 50/50 when people voted.
I'm aware, but I still rather doubt it: real time is more of a standard these days, not to mention what PS:T went with, so if they had gone with that, there wouldn't have been that much of a fuss. Those of us that voted for turn-based (such as me) would just be slightly disappointed but figure it was probably bound to be like this anyway.
The same amount of people would've complained if they went with real time. Poll said 50/50 when people voted.
I'm aware, but I still rather doubt it: real time is more of a standard these days, not to mention what PS:T went with, so if they had gone with that, there wouldn't have been that much of a fuss. Those of us that voted for turn-based (such as me) would just be slightly disappointed but figure it was probably bound to be like this anyway.
I voted turn-based, but I would not have complained at all if they went with RTwP.
I know that one does not make a statistic, but somehow I feel I'm not the only one
The same amount of people would've complained if they went with real time. Poll said 50/50 when people voted.
I'm aware, but I still rather doubt it: real time is more of a standard these days, not to mention what PS:T went with, so if they had gone with that, there wouldn't have been that much of a fuss. Those of us that voted for turn-based (such as me) would just be slightly disappointed but figure it was probably bound to be like this anyway.
I voted turn-based, but I would not have complained at all if they went with RTwP.
I know that one does not make a statistic, but somehow I feel I'm not the only one
I wouldn't have either, however I'm nigh ecstatic there's going to be a new turn-based game. @ajwz mysteriously disappeared when I asked him to list examples of the turn-based games' "much, much larger selection." Unfortunately it's because there isn't a large selection.
My reaction to this news is basically mild indifference. How good or bad turn based combat is relates almost entirely to how they design combat encounters, so I really don't care a bit until I see how it works in game.
I mean I've already given them over £100 or something, all I want is a philosophically deep game with fascinating characters.
with a title like that I thought the game was cancelled. It's a spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment, not a literal one. Real time with pause is nice, but turn based is not the end of the world. It will be interesting to see how it will be implemented.
Comments
It's beside the point, though. The point is that turn-based is infinitely superior and anyone that says otherwise will be given as a sacrifice to Bhaal.
Sure, it may be a bit retro, but you know what, the human race is rather retro-prone anyway.
But I applaud them for that. They stick to their principles and make the game the best they can, in spite of it very possibly selling a few copies less that way.
They should go with what they feel is right and they did. The combat system is only a minor part of the game anyway, it's story and characters that should be important. Unless you really can't stand Turn Based to the point of ever being able to play a game that has pauses in action, there's really no reason to complain.
I know that one does not make a statistic, but somehow I feel I'm not the only one
I thought we were told to stop trolling?
I mean I've already given them over £100 or something, all I want is a philosophically deep game with fascinating characters.
Anyway, as for listing turn based rpgs, I'll start with virtually every jrpg ever made. There are a ton of western rpgs that use it as well.
But it's entirely tangental to the point of this thread, which is why turn based was a bad choice of system for a torment sequel.
There are probably a lot more JRPGs than just Final Fantasy out there, though, so I'll give you that.
People are still comparing RPGs and jPRGs as if they belonged to the same game category ?
Weird :P
I mean sure, western RPGs are rarely much better here, but they at least try. Lemme go find a picture...
This picture also handily illustrates why I vastly prefer to roleplay with friends.
Edit: Also, I swear if someone brings up Mass Effect 3 as "not having the same end result"...