Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 23 of 58 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 57 58
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: 0Muttley0] #658634
03/02/20 02:24 PM
03/02/20 02:24 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
Brent2410 Offline
apprentice
Brent2410  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by 0Muttley0
Had a quick look. Yet another great looking RPG that lacks multiplayer frown
For me multiplayer is a must have these days.

I can understand the sentiment. However, it is their first game and it was a Kickstarter. Taking that into consideration, I think it'll be a studio to keep our eyes on going forward. If the game does well, budgets will increase, and hopefully we'll see multi and a full 5e license.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Brent2410] #658637
03/02/20 06:10 PM
03/02/20 06:10 PM
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 6
Shabu Offline
stranger
Shabu  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Brent2410
Originally Posted by Shabu
However I would love to see turn based version of D&D 5e implementation.

Solasta: Crown of the Magister had a demo up a while back (Sept2019?). It was based off of 5e - pretty barebones as it's not anywhere close to release - but it was a pretty damn good representation of a modern TB 5e game. I'm sure you could find some game play vids. Demo only took like ~30 min, IIRC.


I missed the demo window but quite excited for that release as well. Love seeing 5e titles coming !!! Moar plz!

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658647
04/02/20 05:10 PM
04/02/20 05:10 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Online content
addict
kanisatha  Online Content
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
Deadfire was NOT a financial failure. Enough with the hyperbole. Obsidian has said very clarly that they ended up making money on Deadfire. The issue was that sales were a disappointment relative to Obsidian's expectations for the game, including that it was lower than the sales of the first game.

Nobody has yet provided me with any proof that TB combat is what drove D:OS2's sales. It could've been TB, but there are several other factors that differentiate that game from other similar contemporary cRPGs, so claiming TB was the cause is completely spurious. Furthermore, there are plenty of contemporary TB RPGs out there with abysmal sales numbers.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Hawke] #658653
05/02/20 11:43 AM
05/02/20 11:43 AM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
dlux Offline

addict
dlux  Offline

addict

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
Originally Posted by Hawke

So what do we learn out of this? making an RTWP game with a big budget in a western country is financial suicide, Larian won't be dumb enough to make such a mistake.

I honestly don't even know how you can claim such nonsense, seeing that Baldur's Gate is considered to be the holy grail of CRPGs, sold millions of copies and put Bioware on the map.

Not to mention that Dragon Age: Origins was marketed as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and also sold millions of copies, even more than Original Sin 2, despite it not even having multiplayer.

Also, the new Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Kickstarter is already extremely successful less than one day in. Not surprising, seeing that Pathfinder: Kingmaker sold almost one million copies. It probably would have sold even more if it wasn't so buggy at launch.

That all said, RTwP is probably "financial suicide" in your household, but not in the rest of the world.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: korotama] #658654
05/02/20 12:07 PM
05/02/20 12:07 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
dlux Offline

addict
dlux  Offline

addict

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
Originally Posted by korotama
It's hard to tell if a game's combat system is a make-or-break factor for its financial success. An RPG should be more than just the sum of its parts. What killed PoE for me was the lack of an engaging narrative and scarcity of interesting characters.

The developers of the PoE series were apparently scrambling and looking for answers as to why PoE 2 was severely underperforming. They subsequently tried to "fix" the game by slapping on a turn-based mode and hoped for a resurgence... It changed nothing, because the true problem is the game/series in its entirety.

Turn-based combat also did nothing for Torment: Tides of Numenera. The game still flopped really hard.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: dlux] #658670
07/02/20 09:50 PM
07/02/20 09:50 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Online content
addict
kanisatha  Online Content
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
Originally Posted by dlux
Turn-based combat also did nothing for Torment: Tides of Numenera. The game still flopped really hard.

^This. So this.
Apparently, when a TB game is successful, its success is only because the game was TB.
But if a TB game is a failure, the game being TB had nothing to do with the failure.

How freakin' amazingly convenient. laugh

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658674
07/02/20 11:58 PM
07/02/20 11:58 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
S
Sordak Offline
old hand
Sordak  Offline
old hand
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
you could say the same about RTWP and Kingmaker
Sometimes a good game is good, sometimes a bad game is bad.
Youd think Kingmaker had sold worse if it were TB?
Youd think Tides wouldve sold better if it was RTWP?

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #658762
13/02/20 06:30 PM
13/02/20 06:30 PM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 582
Omegaphallic Offline
addict
Omegaphallic  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by Sordak
you could say the same about RTWP and Kingmaker
Sometimes a good game is good, sometimes a bad game is bad.
Youd think Kingmaker had sold worse if it were TB?
Youd think Tides wouldve sold better if it was RTWP?


We will get to find out, because Owlcat just announced that it's doing a turn based mode for Wrath of the Righteous, and it's not even a stretch or social goal, because they have already started making it.

Below is the Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous Kickstarter post with details.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-wrath-of-the-righteous/posts/2755596

Side note its triggered a spike in backers at a time that had seen things slow down, Mawahahaha.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658766
13/02/20 08:19 PM
13/02/20 08:19 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
S
Sordak Offline
old hand
Sordak  Offline
old hand
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
realy?
hahaha, this is odd!
Owlcat said they didnt plan on that
but they got huge success and the modder that made the mod for PFK doesnt want to continue it (because he constantly has to upate it and doesnt get paid) so its a realy cool move by them.

Tbh, Owlcat is ag reat developer and the Wrath fo the Righteous Kickstarter is proving that quite a bit,t hey got a firm grasp on what their community wants and what constitutes a good game

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658770
13/02/20 11:46 PM
13/02/20 11:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Hawke Offline
enthusiast
Hawke  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Owlcat Game went full traitor refunded and called the police! crazy

In truth, it's a huge waste of money they should have stuck with RTWP since there is no way both combat systems will be equally good and I say that as someone who hopes BG3 is exclusively turn-based.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658775
14/02/20 07:05 AM
14/02/20 07:05 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
S
Sordak Offline
old hand
Sordak  Offline
old hand
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,151
how can you be mad about whats literaly the best of both worlds.
Also they are basing it off the mod...

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #658776
14/02/20 09:02 AM
14/02/20 09:02 AM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Hawke Offline
enthusiast
Hawke  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Sordak
how can you be mad about whats literaly the best of both worlds.
Also they are basing it off the mod...


I am not mad, I just don't like companies waste time and money trying to please everyone which is simply impossible.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658786
14/02/20 06:42 PM
14/02/20 06:42 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Online content
addict
kanisatha  Online Content
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
Well, the bottom line is that Owlcat has pulled the rug out from under developers being able to hide behind the lame excuse that having both will be too much cost/work. If Owlcat, a very small indie studio, can do it, others can do it too - and especially others with deep pockets like Larian for example. So all the studios out there developing TB cRPGs refusing to consider adding a RTwP mod will now have their true motives exposed, which is: "All RTwP games must include a TB option for them to be considered good games. But a TB game does not have to include a RTwP option because it is perfect just as a TB game." This is the true mentality of the pro-TB crowd. All the talk of "why not have both?" comes up only in the context of forcing a RTwP game to add TB, but never for a TB game to add RTwP. It's rank hypocrisy.

Last edited by kanisatha; 15/02/20 03:54 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #658795
15/02/20 01:53 PM
15/02/20 01:53 PM
Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 582
Omegaphallic Offline
addict
Omegaphallic  Offline
addict

Joined: Jul 2019
Posts: 582
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Well, the bottom line is that Owlcat has pulled the rug out from under developers being able to hide behind the lame excuse that having both will be too much cost/work. If Owlcat, a very small indie studio, can do it, others can do it too - and especially others with deep pockets like Larian for example. So all the studios out there developing TB cRPGs refusing to consider adding a RTwP mod will now have their true motives exposed, which is: "All RTwP games must include a TB option for them to be considered good games. But a TB game does not have to include a RTwP option because it is perfect just as a TB game." This is the true mentality of the pro-TB crowd. All the talk of "why not have both?" comes up only in the context of forcing a RTwP game to add TB, but never for a TB game to add RTwP. It's rank hypocricy.


For the record I support BG3 having both. We will hopefully know what it is on the 27th.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Omegaphallic] #658824
16/02/20 03:01 PM
16/02/20 03:01 PM
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
dlux Offline

addict
dlux  Offline

addict

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 446
Germany
It is normal for a developer to be fully dedicated to the combat system they choose and make it as fun as possible. Owlcat Games essentially told fans they aren't completely committed to their own RTwP combat system, so I also felt obligated, although somewhat remorseful, to cancel my pledge. $100 to start wasn't much, but it could have been more.

The funniest thing is that their decision to appease to the vocal minority of turn-based advocates did not pay off at all. Pledges just continued to drastically fall during the mid-campaign slump. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Omegaphallic
For the record I support BG3 having both. We will hopefully know what it is on the 27th.

Not gonna happen. Swen has said they will support one combat mode or the other and not both, which makes perfect sense. This two-track approach of supporting both TB and RTwP in one game is just dumb.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: dlux] #658825
16/02/20 03:26 PM
16/02/20 03:26 PM
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 262
korotama Offline
enthusiast
korotama  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 262
I don't see why having more options is necessarily a bad thing. Difficulty settings (which affect gameplay to various extents) have become a genre staple just to name one. If the budget allows it and the core experience isn't rubbish, it shouldn't do any harm. I emphasize the core experience needs to be fleshed out since offering players ten different ways to polish a turd isn't much of an improvement over coming up with just one. Admittedly, if there's a high likelihood that the game will suffer because of divided attention on the devs' part they are better off working on just one feature. Anyways, until someone conducts a poll that is up to scientific standards with respect to gamers' preferred combat mode I'd be wary of ranking particular audiences by order of magnitude.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #658827
16/02/20 06:28 PM
16/02/20 06:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Hawke Offline
enthusiast
Hawke  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 238
Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.

Last edited by Hawke; 16/02/20 06:43 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Hawke] #658828
16/02/20 07:18 PM
16/02/20 07:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 262
korotama Offline
enthusiast
korotama  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 262
Originally Posted by Hawke
Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.

Actually, that's not the most reprehensible thing about gamers in this day and age. Offshoring, crunch and paying developers peanuts so the former can get their latest fix just in time have plagued the industry for a while now. Sometimes I find it hard to sympathize with people on both ends of the industry's pecking order. Should I feel bad for the CEO who won't be able to afford a brand new speedboat this year because of low earnings? Maybe I should feel sorry for the code monkey who doesn't dare to speak out against crappy corporate policies or the low industry standards because that would be freakin' socialism and besides, wage slaves are better off than unemployed slaves. I don't know, I can't say I have a dog in this fight. Regardless, your point is simply a spin on time and resource management which could be applied not just to combat but virtually every other feature characteristic of a video game. You can play DQXI in both 2D and 3D modes and it doesn't appear to have affected the game's quality adversely judging by aggregate review scores.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Hawke] #658850
17/02/20 04:56 PM
17/02/20 04:56 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Online content
addict
kanisatha  Online Content
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 518
Massachusetts, USA
Originally Posted by Hawke
Why do so many gamers still think games make themself or grow on trees.? frown
Why is it so hard to understand that time is a resource in game development? Devs who work on an additional combat system cannot create content. Even trying to make sure that combat systems are balanced and bug-free is simply impossible and shouldn't even be attempted at all.

This would be perfectly fine if it were applied as a principle equally across the board. The issue is the double standard, that it totally makes sense for a RTwP to HAVE to include a TB option but a TB game shouldn't waste resources on adding a RTwP option. It is this double standard that I am questioning.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #658861
18/02/20 05:53 AM
18/02/20 05:53 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
Brent2410 Offline
apprentice
Brent2410  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by kanisatha
This would be perfectly fine if it were applied as a principle equally across the board. The issue is the double standard, that it totally makes sense for a RTwP to HAVE to include a TB option but a TB game shouldn't waste resources on adding a RTwP option. It is this double standard that I am questioning.

A game designed around TB will have fewer, more meaningful encounters and games designed around RTwP usually have a higher volume of trash encounters. Translating those two between each other... A game where the encounters are designed around having RTwP would be minding numbing with a TB system slapped on. A game where the encounters are designed around having a TB system where a RTwP system is just slapped on will simply have incredibly difficult encounters.

I hope they just pick a system and make it good. It's wasted resources either way if they're not going to dump a massive amount of time in balancing to make them both feel good. A BG1 & BG2 TB conversion would suck just as much as a D:OS 1&2 RTwP conversion, IMHO.

Page 23 of 58 1 2 21 22 23 24 25 57 58

Moderated by  Freddo, vometia 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2