I'm not much of the TB player these days so I have to ask how do you interpret slow gameplay. I can imagine various things behind that idea.
For example, in Pillars of Eternity you can switch game speed: fast or slow gameplay. In TB games some characters only have one action point to execute. So, overall encounter feels slow. On the other hand God of war 3 and Diablo 3 feels very fast flowing.
I think in with this discussion, there also has to be a consideration of what kind of automation is available too - for example, the Civ games would be extremely boring if you had to give every city/worker/unit new orders every single round - I want to play a strategy game not a pretty version of farmville. So a robust set of scripting and automation routines can turn a chore into potential strategies, and are vital when considering how turns progress...
for me, I (personally and subjectively) much prefer turn based. While I have loved some real time games and the action involved therein, I like to take my time and decide what/how to go next.
For me, it doesn't get any better than ToEE (with the Co8 patches and fixes). The turn based combat was what made it for me, hands down (plus being able to replay an adventure from my youth). Controlling a party of characters, I am just not very good at managing on the fly and I usually hate what the 'AI' wants to do if I don't control every character.
I recommend taking a look at NWN2 with the Tony K's ai mod. There's a setting under party AI so that it pauses at the beginning of each party member's turn and switches to them. Was neat so that you could use party AI to auto-switch weapons or cast spells or just auto attack but then on difficult fights have it pause at the beginning of everyone's turn so you can super micro-manage it.
NWN2 without mods is "meh" but with mods it most assuredly one of the best CRPGs out there.
I'll do my full analysis and opinion on turn based vs RTWP later when I have more time to create such a post.
I definitely prefer real time with pause, but mostly because I am not a fan of a majority of turn based RPGs. Final Fantasy and other similar JRPGs just don't do it for me, so I associate turn-based RPGs with JRPGs. On the other hand, the only RPGs I have played that has real-time with pause is Baldurs Gate and NWN, so I associate real time with pause to be better than turn based because I like those games. I think that both types have their strengths and weaknesses. Although easier to understand and implement, turn based has been done to death for years in all kinds of games, even in the majority of modern apps, and is boring simply because it is so un-original, even if how it is implemented isn't. Real time with pause is more refreshing, realistic, and immersive, but still allows for people like me with slow reflexes to stand a chance at victory. I honestly do enjoy turn-based games, but the idea of two people taking turns to harm each other just destroys any chance of immersion for me.
Playing solely in real time in an can be great for more action based RPG games where you need to think and react fast but can you have a conversation with another character in the game in real time? At present no. Even in a real time game there will be pauses... Why not just allow pauses anyway. In an online environment... I'll say real time all the way. How many times have you been frustrated by a team mate pausing... Sometimes I think this should be disabled in multiplayer BG. Instead of pausing the game, the character leaves the party and becomes like any other NPC waiting for PC to talk to them (if they should become invulnerable is another talking point)...
Turn based lacks a certain something on the computer. Great for a tabletop game to put everything in order... But on a computer, a device made to save time and multitask? No. I think the biggest problem with a turn based system is you can over analyse each move, this can be a good thing for games like Civ, but it can become a stop start nightmare for an RPG... And expectations for fluidity (not of play but what can be seen on screen) just makes it a no from me.
I don't really have a preference one way or the other - both are fun for me as long as they're done well.
TB has an added strategic layer as it were of setting out initiative, and it's easier to manage special abilities and unique skills and so forth - so if you were making a game with a very "in depth" combat system where you have oodles of special abilities for each character I would much prefer TB simply because it's often too difficult to manage combat where every character has some number combat related skills or considerations that you need to/can use during each fight.
If your combat system is more simplistic then RTwP is my preferred option because you don't really get to use your turn for anything besides clicking on the bad guy or opening a spell/ability menu of some sort and then clicking the baddie lol. That lends itself to the faster pace of RTwP and TB would feel really slow in such a scenario.
I would also say if your game features a TON of combat, and isn't a strategic combat game, then avoiding TB would probably be to my preference, because TB games that feature a lot of trash/easy fights *do* get pretty slow.
TB combat offers a lot of depth (initiative, cover mechanics, lots of combat related abilities) but that's not explicitly necessary to create a good game, but if you want those sorts of things in your combat you basically have to go TB because it'd be overwhelming to manage all of that in a RTwP environment.
One thing that tips the scale for me in turn based (specifically ToEE) is the 5 foot step. This has not been implemented in any real time game that I know of (or maybe just not well?) And is a really nice to have for a player like me.
Wait, When you say tbs, are we talking about full on TBS? With a grid based movement system, taking into account things like the elevation of the character, the environment, and an actual decent A.I. or are talking tbs like the first two final fantasy games?
Lots of good insight here! Thanks for sharing, everyone.
I'd like to ask some clarifying questions, if I may. Feel free to answer any or all of the following, or ask questions of your own.
Just a note: a number of these questions focus on turn-based gameplay, because (this being a primarily BG forum) I'm assuming that most of us are familiar with real-time with pause games.
- Slow gameplay: Can you think of a game with TB combat that didn't feel slow? What about games with an auto-combat feature, like Heroes of Might and Magic?
Final fantasy tactics, this is just my opinion of course, but slow is the last thing I'd call that game.
- Rules: Does your preference shift one way or the other if the game is using a system of rules you're familiar with?
No, one thing an about me is I tend to try and adapt to the game, which is why when I was informed that I could turn off all the pointless animation in bg to make it look like it was only one action per turn. It was already too late for me, I had already grew accustomed to it. Nw this doesn't mean I couldn't change, I just see no gain from it now.
- Local Multiplayer: TB could potentially allow hot-seat local multiplayer. Is local multiplayer something that would make TB more appealing as a player?
- Online Multiplayer: RTWP allows all players in an online game to act simultaneously--until someone pauses the game. How does pausing an online game help or hinder your gameplay experience? Do simultaneous actions make RTWP more appealing?
HINDERS GREATLY, because no it could be abused or just used to troll. Especially if the other player can't unpause it. Even then there is no promise that the other player won't unpause while the player is afk and cheat.
- Immersion: If you prefer TB games, how do you reconcile the turn-based gameplay with immersion in the world? Are you still able to connect to the world when turns are being taken one at a time?
Yea, it never separated me from the world. Even games like final fantasy tactics had cutscenes that were directly in the world, before going straight into the battle. I love shadowrun returns/dragonfall (still need to get hong kong), and you're never taken out of the world even when you go into battle, in fact, its even stronger in the shadowrun series because you're not standing in the open like an idiot taking arrows to the knee. You have to take cover, reposition yourself, take into account your area and so on.
- Tactics: If you prefer RTWP games, how do you feel about the compromise in tactical precision (for example, casting a fireball on an area and then watching an enemy move out of that area before the spell is cast)?
lol, someone didn't take into charge time against the opens move time, or didn't bother to cc them first.
- Are there other ways you would like to see rules-intensive games handle tactical gameplay?
Better A.I., take into account stronger variables like different status effects beyond poison and blind. Create more spells and abilities that deal directly with the surrounding environment and even require a specific area to even be used. Much like FFT's Geomancer class!
Wait, When you say tbs, are we talking about full on TBS? With a grid based movement system, taking into account things like the elevation of the character, the environment, and an actual decent A.I. or are talking tbs like the first two final fantasy games?
When I say "turn-based", all I'm really referring to is the dynamic of "You go, then I go" during combat. That could be executed in the style of Final Fantasy (two "fixed" sides), or it could be more like X-COM with a full map and grid system. If you have strong feelings about the various ways Turn-Based combat is handled, I'd love to hear about them.
- Slow gameplay: Can you think of a game with TB combat that didn't feel slow? What about games with an auto-combat feature, like Heroes of Might and Magic?
Final fantasy tactics, this is just my opinion of course, but slow is the last thing I'd call that game.
I'll admit I never played FFT (though I've had friends who raved about it). Is there anything particular about that game that appears to improve the game's pacing for you?
- Immersion: If you prefer TB games, how do you reconcile the turn-based gameplay with immersion in the world? Are you still able to connect to the world when turns are being taken one at a time?
Yea, it never separated me from the world. Even games like final fantasy tactics had cutscenes that were directly in the world, before going straight into the battle. I love shadowrun returns/dragonfall (still need to get hong kong), and you're never taken out of the world even when you go into battle, in fact, its even stronger in the shadowrun series because you're not standing in the open like an idiot taking arrows to the knee. You have to take cover, reposition yourself, take into account your area and so on.
I would probably counter that some of those elements aren't unique to turn-based combat; plenty of real-time games use cover mechanics, whether or not players make effective use of them.
But let's talk about that for a minute, because there does seem to be a bit of a gap between the Real-Time With Pause games that have been released recently and the Turn-Based games that have been released. Something that I've noticed is that Real-Time games (using Pillars of Eternity as an example) tend to simplify the environmental mechanics like elevation and cover or omit them altogether. Turn-based games (looking at X-COM and Shadowrun Returns here), in contrast, tend to heavily emphasize these elements.
I can make some guesses as to why that might be, but I'm curious about whether people think those elements are important? If those things are important to you, can you think of a way that a real-time game like Pillars might incorporate those elements effectively? Why do you suppose those elements are omitted from real-time games?
Turn based lacks a certain something on the computer. Great for a tabletop game to put everything in order... But on a computer, a device made to save time and multitask? No. I think the biggest problem with a turn based system is you can over analyse each move, this can be a good thing for games like Civ, but it can become a stop start nightmare for an RPG... And expectations for fluidity (not of play but what can be seen on screen) just makes it a no from me.
I recently picked up Final Fantasy X for the first time, which uses turn-based combat. It took me a long time to get used to it, after playing a lot of action-heavy games. Once I got into the groove of it, though, I found the system very rewarding for that game.
How heavily do you think expectations play into that? Everyone has preferences for which games to play, naturally, and that can always color expectations when playing something new. I'm wondering to what degree that reaction is self-feeding, i.e. I only play shooters, so when I play a game that isn't a shooter it feels weird to me, so I only play shooters.
Turn based lacks a certain something on the computer. Great for a tabletop game to put everything in order... But on a computer, a device made to save time and multitask? No. I think the biggest problem with a turn based system is you can over analyse each move, this can be a good thing for games like Civ, but it can become a stop start nightmare for an RPG... And expectations for fluidity (not of play but what can be seen on screen) just makes it a no from me.
I recently picked up Final Fantasy X for the first time, which uses turn-based combat. It took me a long time to get used to it, after playing a lot of action-heavy games. Once I got into the groove of it, though, I found the system very rewarding for that game.
How heavily do you think expectations play into that? Everyone has preferences for which games to play, naturally, and that can always color expectations when playing something new. I'm wondering to what degree that reaction is self-feeding, i.e. I only play shooters, so when I play a game that isn't a shooter it feels weird to me, so I only play shooters.
@Dee expectations and prejudices abound in computer games. They can be self-feeding but if a game is rewarding, inventive and exciting any system will just be absorbed into the background. (I'm playing and loving Pokemon Go... Why? It is rewarding, inventive and exciting!)
Expectations are, I feel, the game developers achilles heel. Especially developing a, next in the series, game.
Using Civ as an example, would it be the same game if you took away the turn based system? No. The nature and feel of the game would be completely different. The demands on the player, the speed of play and the depth of play would be fundamentally changed. Plus you would probably have a hoard of die hard fans organising a lynching. HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE GAME!
Yet, any development in a franchise needs changes and developments to progress (I remember arguing with my Dad about Civ II being better in a 3D (I did not know the word isometric at the time) than the old top down view that he preferred...
One thing that tips the scale for me in turn based (specifically ToEE) is the 5 foot step. This has not been implemented in any real time game that I know of (or maybe just not well?) And is a really nice to have for a player like me.
The problem with the 5-foot step in ToEE is that the enemies generally don't use it against you. Your character does a full attack then takes a 5-foot step back. The enemies then use a move action and standard attack, rather than a 5-foot step and full attack. It's essentially just a "cheese" tactic to abuse the A.I..
When I say "turn-based", all I'm really referring to is the dynamic of "You go, then I go" during combat. That could be executed in the style of Final Fantasy (two "fixed" sides), or it could be more like X-COM with a full map and grid system. If you have strong feelings about the various ways Turn-Based combat is handled, I'd love to hear about them.
I have nothing really to says about the two fixed sides TB because for me that isn't really anything to say there. Its just a matter of stats vs stats when it comes to that for me. TBS, on the other hand, I hand down prefer over pauses because I go into that more on a strategic mentality. I'm trying to plan ever move to get the most effective results with the least amount of losses on my side. Now I'm not claiming this can't be done with The pause, but being able to look and see every move I can make and every move that could be made by my opponent beforehand by every piece makes TBS more like a game of chess than anything else.
- I'll admit I never played FFT (though I've had friends who raved about it). Is there anything particular about that game that appears to improve the game's pacing for you?
The effing things you fight and under some of the conditions you have to win those fights. You have times you're where you're placed against an entire team of black Chocobo. What, not frightening to you? These things can freaking fly and have a 6 tile move space while ignoring height (because of their flying movement ability). Now add onto that their ability Chocobo meteor, which has a 6 tile targeting space, hits like a truck, and can two- three shot anything that isn't a knight, dragoon, possess auto-potion, auto-heal, regen, or long range life steal. Oh did I mention it has no charge time or mana cost so that can kite you for days?
Not exciting enough? Well, we have to fight these boss fight known as legendary warriors, while not over the top crazy, some of the conditions of the fight is the textbook definition of how JRPG love to string along fights! After doing one annoying fight where the main character is separated from the rest of the party and has to 1v1 an old friend who is also a dark knight/black knight. Knights who are fallen and possess special long range abilities that life steal. The other for of your group are ambushed outside by 6 enemy troops, 2 knights, 3 arches (can't remember what the last one was) and unless you have two choices. Fight separately, or take hits on the MC b trying to get to the gate with so you can regroup your team.
Oh, this doesn't take into account what class you are because that can make this a lot easier or a lot harder!
I would probably counter that some of those elements aren't unique to turn-based combat; plenty of real-time games use cover mechanics, whether or not players make effective use of them.
I wasn't insinuating that this was something Unique to TBS, but it is something one would expect to see in a TBS in my opinion.
But let's talk about that for a minute, because there does seem to be a bit of a gap between the Real-Time With Pause games that have been released recently and the Turn-Based games that have been released. Something that I've noticed is that Real-Time games (using Pillars of Eternity as an example) tend to simplify the environmental mechanics like elevation and cover or omit them altogether. Turn-based games (looking at X-COM and Shadowrun Returns here), in contrast, tend to heavily emphasize these elements.
I can make some guesses as to why that might be, but I'm curious about whether people think those elements are important? If those things are important to you, can you think of a way that a real-time game like Pillars might incorporate those elements effectively? Why do you suppose those elements are omitted from real-time games?
I can only give my opinion on why, but I've never played pillars of eternity so I can't say anything on that. As you've noticed I've been referring to TB as TBS, because games like Shadowrun and FFT are just that to me. They have a strategic element to them that a lot of Real-time and real-time with the pause just don't face for me. Real time without a doubt has its tactical play, but there is a difference between tactics and strategy.
"The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution"
A lot of real-time games, tend to omit this such as covers, height elevation, weight and mass of objects and even characters because remember they are trying to reach the widest audience they can and while just being here on these forums could be used as an argument that players do take strategy into consideration when playing real-time with pause, the mass majority doesn't. Even in RTS such as starcraft, the majority will go for him fastest win tactics instead of a strategy that is constantly evolving and require managing and maintaining change.
My roommate, for example, plays LOL, and I've only got him to play rise of nations a few times with myself and that is mostly because he hates having to do all the microing that comes with it. He hates shooters but is all about combat which is why he plays fighting games. Fighting games exist on tactics, and not necessarily strategy. He has sat and watched for over an hour me play rise of nations on its hardest setting against 6-7 other nations. He sat there watching me jump from town to town redistributing resources, and microing workers changing one town from a resource bank into a military base to push out certain numbers of certain units, sending across the land and see to conquer while I fortify another area of mine that was being bombarded all because one instant moment my strategy had to change from what it was to a new way to seize the campaign.
Now the rise of nations is an RTS, with TB or TBS, I have more time for careful planning on how and when I'm going to execute the tactic to achieve my next objective. My point here being is a lot of real-time games want you to be consumed into the core which is usually combat, while they try to add other elements, they don't want to add to many variables. That could actually add to turning the player off from the game "slowing the action down" For a lot of players who want instant on the spot fun.
For me it was interesting phenomena what happened with Tides of Numenera. There were arguments why TB is better choice for it. I respect every developer's choice if they have strong dedication to have one combat system over the other and they believe it would be better. But, I don't agree with and don't accept the voting system for it. Basically,
48% backers voted for TB
47% backers voted for RTwP
5 % were indifferent
Poll should have been repeated,IMO. The reason I don't agree with this is the same how Brexit was voted over by 52%. If you have to choose between two choices, elected one should gain at least 65%-70% of all votes, IMO. But, I prefer RTwP because is more consistent to the overall natural gameflow and control of the characters. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera/posts/686723
@brus As I understood it, they took the poll as advisory--the votes were close enough to not make a compelling argument either way, so they made the choice they thought worked best for their game.
Yes, but if the voting would be real poll, I wouldn't accept it as valid one. I would want that 5% with indifferent status should have made a binary choice and the one with at least 65% threshold would win over. Then I would know it's a good advice.
Yes, but if the voting would be real poll, I wouldn't accept it as valid one. I would want that 5% with indifferent status should have make a binary choice and the one with at least 65% threshold would win over. Then I would know it's a good advice.
That's sort of my point. If the poll was meant to be instructive, the close result told them that there was no clear preference either way, leaving them free to do what they thought best.
Rtwp. It's part of what sets the infinity engine games apart from the rest.
I don't believe it hinders tactics in any way, in fact I consider that it provides even more variables and uncertainty to consider. I do enjoy Tb but I doubt that the bg series would be considered as unique and challenging had it adopted this approach.
Also, please don't try and provide both, arcanum tried this and in my opinion failed (despite being a good game otherwise).
But let's talk about that for a minute, because there does seem to be a bit of a gap between the Real-Time With Pause games that have been released recently and the Turn-Based games that have been released. Something that I've noticed is that Real-Time games (using Pillars of Eternity as an example) tend to simplify the environmental mechanics like elevation and cover or omit them altogether. Turn-based games (looking at X-COM and Shadowrun Returns here), in contrast, tend to heavily emphasize these elements.
A lot of real-time games, tend to omit this such as covers, height elevation, weight and mass of objects and even characters because remember they are trying to reach the widest audience they can and while just being here on these forums could be used as an argument that players do take strategy into consideration when playing real-time with pause, the mass majority doesn't. Even in RTS such as starcraft, the majority will go for him fastest win tactics instead of a strategy that is constantly evolving and require managing and maintaining change.
I think this is only a matter of implementation of combat system in 2d or 3d game. In X-COM 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 this is easier to implement than in, for example, in Pillars of Eternity. In PoE being prerendered you have to take account of isometric elevation before you're rendering your map. It's a potential hustle and could have undesired results afterwards. That is simply being replaced with chance to miss variable and reflex variable in math system which represents character's ability to dodge area of effect attacks.
Personally, elevation mechanics is nice to have but not mandatory for fantasy RPG if all other elements and well done.
Genre is a factor. Cover is obviously more important when the dominant weapon is the gun, and less meaningful when the dominant weaon is the sword (or magic missiles that fly round corners).
@brus That may be true about the cost of building in height maps, but games like X-COM also use miss chances, and reflex-based effects have their roots in D&D, which is classically turn-based; X-COM was also not always 3D, and has used some form of cover since the first game in the franchise.
@Fardragon I don't know that I totally agree with that assessment; any game with ranged weapons is going to be somewhat affected by cover mechanics, whether they're guns or crossbows. Considering how many players build their parties in Baldur's Gate with ranged combat in mind, I imagine that adding cover mechanics and "high ground" bonuses would have a significant impact on gameplay.
@jobby I hear that a lot, actually--that TB/RTWP "hybrid" games don't work as well--and I think there's some merit to that point, in that you have to design encounters very differently for each of those systems. A large combat encounter in RTWP, for instance, might have as many as twenty weak enemies to fight in order to convey a sense of "battling the horde"; that same idea, in a turn-based game, could be executed with as few as eight enemies, simply because automated attacks aren't as much of a thing.
In fact I would say that twenty enemies in a turn-based game would risk feeling like an endless churn, which in RTWP wouldn't happen until the numbers started getting closer to, say, fifty.
I think if you were to design a game with both systems in mind, though, it would have to be a game-wide setting, and it would have to be something that you can't change during combat. It would also require two versions of every encounter, in order to accommodate the different styles of play--and rewards would need to be adjusted accordingly as well. Mechanics would also need to be tweaked, I imagine.
It's certainly cheaper to pick one or the other, in other words.
That may be true about the cost of building in height maps, but games like X-COM also use miss chances, and reflex-based effects have their roots in D&D, which is classically turn-based; X-COM was also not always 3D, and has used some form of cover since the first game in the franchise.
I meant at the expense of leaving height benefits and drawbacks, other variables are introduced which simulate some surogate to elevation mechanic. Though, I didn't know about original XCOM.
For ranged characters this could be nice approach but then level design should be made appropriately. This also means if you allow to have all mages or monks in your party, would that be a flaw in game design?
Btw, would mage character also have benefits/buffs being elevated as he has "ranged" attacks ? I've never thought of the mage from this standpoint.
My view of the mage clash is no-cover vis-a-vis approach.
In most of the video games that I've seen, magic-wielding creatures don't need to worry about cover, "because magic." Penetrating cover is also one of the hallmark features of laser weapons in the X-COM series, even though I'm pretty sure that's not how cover is supposed to work.
But that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Tabletop D&D lets creatures benefit from cover against any attack or spell that uses an attack roll or Dexterity-based saving throw, for instance.
@brus I a can't speak for Xcom since I haven't played it, but in FFT they did. Everybody including monsters had to take the entire environment into account. There were certain places on the map that you couldn't melee attack up, but someone up there could melee attack down. Other places you couldn't do either because the height difference was just too great. Heck, unless you had enough jump via items, movement skills, the ability to fly, or teleport; there was just some area's character couldn't reach at all.
Same with characters like Archers who used bows, and Alchemist who used guns. You got increased range if you were shooting down cliffs, compared to the smaller range you got if you were trying to shoot up them. That also took into account arrows and bullets flew differently so arrows could also sometimes be shot over things that would generally stop a bullet, but even arrows could be blocked by terrain if the shot was practically impossible. Crossbows worked similar to guns when it came to the trajectory.
Also, another thing I'd like to note is you simply said fantasy RPG. I was strictly speaking for TB/tbs styled RPG. I know this is just a small little nitpick, but I don't expect this stuff to be in every fantasy RPG. Action RPG like Diablo I feel shouldn't have all this stuff because the play isn't designed to handle it. The game isn't designed for you to take into account every variable that could shift your victory or your loss. Its designed to emphasize, the action and the play.
Comments
I can imagine various things behind that idea.
For example, in Pillars of Eternity you can switch game speed: fast or slow gameplay. In TB games some characters only have one action point to execute. So, overall encounter feels slow.
On the other hand God of war 3 and Diablo 3 feels very fast flowing.
For me, it doesn't get any better than ToEE (with the Co8 patches and fixes). The turn based combat was what made it for me, hands down (plus being able to replay an adventure from my youth). Controlling a party of characters, I am just not very good at managing on the fly and I usually hate what the 'AI' wants to do if I don't control every character.
Auto pause - end of round option, not exactly "turn based" but kind of
NWN2 without mods is "meh" but with mods it most assuredly one of the best CRPGs out there.
I'll do my full analysis and opinion on turn based vs RTWP later when I have more time to create such a post.
I think that both types have their strengths and weaknesses. Although easier to understand and implement, turn based has been done to death for years in all kinds of games, even in the majority of modern apps, and is boring simply because it is so un-original, even if how it is implemented isn't. Real time with pause is more refreshing, realistic, and immersive, but still allows for people like me with slow reflexes to stand a chance at victory. I honestly do enjoy turn-based games, but the idea of two people taking turns to harm each other just destroys any chance of immersion for me.
Playing solely in real time in an can be great for more action based RPG games where you need to think and react fast but can you have a conversation with another character in the game in real time? At present no. Even in a real time game there will be pauses... Why not just allow pauses anyway. In an online environment... I'll say real time all the way. How many times have you been frustrated by a team mate pausing... Sometimes I think this should be disabled in multiplayer BG. Instead of pausing the game, the character leaves the party and becomes like any other NPC waiting for PC to talk to them (if they should become invulnerable is another talking point)...
Turn based lacks a certain something on the computer. Great for a tabletop game to put everything in order... But on a computer, a device made to save time and multitask? No. I think the biggest problem with a turn based system is you can over analyse each move, this can be a good thing for games like Civ, but it can become a stop start nightmare for an RPG... And expectations for fluidity (not of play but what can be seen on screen) just makes it a no from me.
TB has an added strategic layer as it were of setting out initiative, and it's easier to manage special abilities and unique skills and so forth - so if you were making a game with a very "in depth" combat system where you have oodles of special abilities for each character I would much prefer TB simply because it's often too difficult to manage combat where every character has some number combat related skills or considerations that you need to/can use during each fight.
If your combat system is more simplistic then RTwP is my preferred option because you don't really get to use your turn for anything besides clicking on the bad guy or opening a spell/ability menu of some sort and then clicking the baddie lol. That lends itself to the faster pace of RTwP and TB would feel really slow in such a scenario.
I would also say if your game features a TON of combat, and isn't a strategic combat game, then avoiding TB would probably be to my preference, because TB games that feature a lot of trash/easy fights *do* get pretty slow.
TB combat offers a lot of depth (initiative, cover mechanics, lots of combat related abilities) but that's not explicitly necessary to create a good game, but if you want those sorts of things in your combat you basically have to go TB because it'd be overwhelming to manage all of that in a RTwP environment.
lol, someone didn't take into charge time against the opens move time, or didn't bother to cc them first.
Better A.I., take into account stronger variables like different status effects beyond poison and blind. Create more spells and abilities that deal directly with the surrounding environment and even require a specific area to even be used. Much like FFT's Geomancer class!
But let's talk about that for a minute, because there does seem to be a bit of a gap between the Real-Time With Pause games that have been released recently and the Turn-Based games that have been released. Something that I've noticed is that Real-Time games (using Pillars of Eternity as an example) tend to simplify the environmental mechanics like elevation and cover or omit them altogether. Turn-based games (looking at X-COM and Shadowrun Returns here), in contrast, tend to heavily emphasize these elements.
I can make some guesses as to why that might be, but I'm curious about whether people think those elements are important? If those things are important to you, can you think of a way that a real-time game like Pillars might incorporate those elements effectively? Why do you suppose those elements are omitted from real-time games?
How heavily do you think expectations play into that? Everyone has preferences for which games to play, naturally, and that can always color expectations when playing something new. I'm wondering to what degree that reaction is self-feeding, i.e. I only play shooters, so when I play a game that isn't a shooter it feels weird to me, so I only play shooters.
Expectations are, I feel, the game developers achilles heel. Especially developing a, next in the series, game.
Using Civ as an example, would it be the same game if you took away the turn based system? No. The nature and feel of the game would be completely different. The demands on the player, the speed of play and the depth of play would be fundamentally changed. Plus you would probably have a hoard of die hard fans organising a lynching. HOW DARE YOU CHANGE THE GAME!
Yet, any development in a franchise needs changes and developments to progress (I remember arguing with my Dad about Civ II being better in a 3D (I did not know the word isometric at the time) than the old top down view that he preferred...
Would BG be the same game without the pause?
...
Random thoughts only...
Not exciting enough? Well, we have to fight these boss fight known as legendary warriors, while not over the top crazy, some of the conditions of the fight is the textbook definition of how JRPG love to string along fights! After doing one annoying fight where the main character is separated from the rest of the party and has to 1v1 an old friend who is also a dark knight/black knight. Knights who are fallen and possess special long range abilities that life steal. The other for of your group are ambushed outside by 6 enemy troops, 2 knights, 3 arches (can't remember what the last one was) and unless you have two choices. Fight separately, or take hits on the MC b trying to get to the gate with so you can regroup your team.
Oh, this doesn't take into account what class you are because that can make this a lot easier or a lot harder!
I wasn't insinuating that this was something Unique to TBS, but it is something one would expect to see in a TBS in my opinion.
I can only give my opinion on why, but I've never played pillars of eternity so I can't say anything on that. As you've noticed I've been referring to TB as TBS, because games like Shadowrun and FFT are just that to me. They have a strategic element to them that a lot of Real-time and real-time with the pause just don't face for me. Real time without a doubt has its tactical play, but there is a difference between tactics and strategy.
"The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution"
A lot of real-time games, tend to omit this such as covers, height elevation, weight and mass of objects and even characters because remember they are trying to reach the widest audience they can and while just being here on these forums could be used as an argument that players do take strategy into consideration when playing real-time with pause, the mass majority doesn't. Even in RTS such as starcraft, the majority will go for him fastest win tactics instead of a strategy that is constantly evolving and require managing and maintaining change.
My roommate, for example, plays LOL, and I've only got him to play rise of nations a few times with myself and that is mostly because he hates having to do all the microing that comes with it. He hates shooters but is all about combat which is why he plays fighting games. Fighting games exist on tactics, and not necessarily strategy. He has sat and watched for over an hour me play rise of nations on its hardest setting against 6-7 other nations. He sat there watching me jump from town to town redistributing resources, and microing workers changing one town from a resource bank into a military base to push out certain numbers of certain units, sending across the land and see to conquer while I fortify another area of mine that was being bombarded all because one instant moment my strategy had to change from what it was to a new way to seize the campaign.
Now the rise of nations is an RTS, with TB or TBS, I have more time for careful planning on how and when I'm going to execute the tactic to achieve my next objective. My point here being is a lot of real-time games want you to be consumed into the core which is usually combat, while they try to add other elements, they don't want to add to many variables. That could actually add to turning the player off from the game "slowing the action down" For a lot of players who want instant on the spot fun.
- 48% backers voted for TB
- 47% backers voted for RTwP
- 5 % were indifferent
Poll should have been repeated,IMO.The reason I don't agree with this is the same how Brexit was voted over by 52%.
If you have to choose between two choices, elected one should gain at least 65%-70% of all votes, IMO.
But, I prefer RTwP because is more consistent to the overall natural gameflow and control of the characters.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera/posts/686723
Then I would know it's a good advice.
I don't believe it hinders tactics in any way, in fact I consider that it provides even more variables and uncertainty to consider. I do enjoy Tb but I doubt that the bg series would be considered as unique and challenging had it adopted this approach.
Also, please don't try and provide both, arcanum tried this and in my opinion failed (despite being a good game otherwise).
In X-COM 2 and Divinity: Original Sin 2 this is easier to implement than in, for example, in Pillars of Eternity. In PoE being prerendered you have to take account of isometric elevation before you're rendering your map. It's a potential hustle and could have undesired results afterwards. That is simply being replaced with chance to miss variable and reflex variable in math system which represents character's ability to dodge area of effect attacks.
Personally, elevation mechanics is nice to have but not mandatory for fantasy RPG if all other elements and well done.
@Fardragon I don't know that I totally agree with that assessment; any game with ranged weapons is going to be somewhat affected by cover mechanics, whether they're guns or crossbows. Considering how many players build their parties in Baldur's Gate with ranged combat in mind, I imagine that adding cover mechanics and "high ground" bonuses would have a significant impact on gameplay.
@jobby I hear that a lot, actually--that TB/RTWP "hybrid" games don't work as well--and I think there's some merit to that point, in that you have to design encounters very differently for each of those systems. A large combat encounter in RTWP, for instance, might have as many as twenty weak enemies to fight in order to convey a sense of "battling the horde"; that same idea, in a turn-based game, could be executed with as few as eight enemies, simply because automated attacks aren't as much of a thing.
In fact I would say that twenty enemies in a turn-based game would risk feeling like an endless churn, which in RTWP wouldn't happen until the numbers started getting closer to, say, fifty.
I think if you were to design a game with both systems in mind, though, it would have to be a game-wide setting, and it would have to be something that you can't change during combat. It would also require two versions of every encounter, in order to accommodate the different styles of play--and rewards would need to be adjusted accordingly as well. Mechanics would also need to be tweaked, I imagine.
It's certainly cheaper to pick one or the other, in other words.
For ranged characters this could be nice approach but then level design should be made appropriately.
This also means if you allow to have all mages or monks in your party, would that be a flaw in game design?
Btw, would mage character also have benefits/buffs being elevated as he has "ranged" attacks ?
I've never thought of the mage from this standpoint.
My view of the mage clash is no-cover vis-a-vis approach.
But that doesn't mean it has to be that way. Tabletop D&D lets creatures benefit from cover against any attack or spell that uses an attack roll or Dexterity-based saving throw, for instance.
I a can't speak for Xcom since I haven't played it, but in FFT they did. Everybody including monsters had to take the entire environment into account. There were certain places on the map that you couldn't melee attack up, but someone up there could melee attack down. Other places you couldn't do either because the height difference was just too great. Heck, unless you had enough jump via items, movement skills, the ability to fly, or teleport; there was just some area's character couldn't reach at all.
Same with characters like Archers who used bows, and Alchemist who used guns. You got increased range if you were shooting down cliffs, compared to the smaller range you got if you were trying to shoot up them. That also took into account arrows and bullets flew differently so arrows could also sometimes be shot over things that would generally stop a bullet, but even arrows could be blocked by terrain if the shot was practically impossible. Crossbows worked similar to guns when it came to the trajectory.
Also, another thing I'd like to note is you simply said fantasy RPG. I was strictly speaking for TB/tbs styled RPG. I know this is just a small little nitpick, but I don't expect this stuff to be in every fantasy RPG. Action RPG like Diablo I feel shouldn't have all this stuff because the play isn't designed to handle it. The game isn't designed for you to take into account every variable that could shift your victory or your loss. Its designed to emphasize, the action and the play.