Larian Studios
Posted By: DarkNeo Real-time combat - 15/05/13 02:44 PM
Hello community! So far, everything I've seen in D: OS I like, I just did not convince me is the turn-based combat system.

And, in Divine Divinity was great! It was frantic, full of action, etc..

In D: OS noticed that a simple combat, with 1 or 2 enemies, you can take like 20 minutes or more, on something as simple as attacking and killing.

No, in games like Final Fantasy can look good, but I think it is well in the saga Divinity, being that was born a ARPG in real time.

Why they came to make a turn-based combat?

Do not could include an option to play it in real time?

It makes me a little sad that, that this was a great opportunity to continue the legacy of Divine Divinity, continue and improve the combat system, and so on. consolidate the saga as a new standard, as it was Diablo.

I would have loved another ARPG in real time.
Posted By: vinaysshenoy Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 03:17 PM
Actually, the previous games were meant to be Turn-Based, but they became Real-Time because of pressure from publishers.

For the videos shown, take into consideration they were demonstrating the combat and it would've at least doubled the time required for actually finishing the battle.

Plus, turn based games can be great fun if implemented right. Take the King's Bounty games, for example. The combat is deceptively simple to begin with, but can become extremely fun ans challenging later on.
Posted By: watser Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 03:41 PM
D:OS is the true successor to DD, especially in terms of the combat system. There's so many realtime combat games out there that it's not even funny anymore
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 03:53 PM
No, they cannot and will not make an option to play it in real-time. Turn-based is an integral part of the design.
Posted By: meme Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 04:11 PM
This is the year of rpg turn base tactical combat !
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 04:21 PM

The UI, etc, isn't finalized, many of the skills are not done and Larian was specifically demonstrating certain spells and combinations in the gameplay videos, so as Vinaysshenoy said, combat took longer than necessary.

In any case, there will be fewer opponents in D:OS than there were in DD.

Turn based combat can work better for party based games, and can be much more tactical than real time.
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

Turn based combat can work better for party based games, and can be much more tactical than real time.


Wow, but that's a highly controversial statement! RTwP combat in BG 2 for example was awesome and it was a party based game.

I agree that turn-based combat is even more tactical but RTwP has a more fluid and immersive gameplay. It's simply a decision which path you want to follow but there is no rule like "party based game = turn-based combat works better".

I like the turn-based approach in D:OS because we don't have much of these games today and I always support variety. Project Eternity will have RTwP combat, D:OS will have turn-based combat and it's not even decided for Torment which combat system will be implemented. So I think there will be at least one game and hopefully more than one for every old-school RPG fan. smile
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 15/05/13 11:06 PM

That statement is a fact (note the word 'can') and therefore not controversial at all (unless you want to claim real time combat always works better).

With a party, real time combat can force you to control a particular character to avoid problems with AI (an archer running around drawing nearby opponents into a fight, or a mage wasting high mana spells on weak opponents) or do a lot of pausing to micro-manage. The babysitting required in the first large fight in the BG 2 demo made me pass on the game. I've since bought it in a GOG sale, but haven't gotten around to giving it another try.

There are lots of ways to do both real time and turn based combat well or poorly, and lots of differences of opinion on where exactly a particular system falls on that scale. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either (the details of how the combat system is implemented would be the determining factor, but just whether it was real time or turn based).
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Raze

That statement is a fact (note the word 'can') and therefore not controversial at all (unless you want to claim real time combat always works better).

With a party, real time combat can force you to control a particular character to avoid problems with AI (an archer running around drawing nearby opponents into a fight, or a mage wasting high mana spells on weak opponents) or do a lot of pausing to micro-manage. The babysitting required in the first large fight in the BG 2 demo made me pass on the game. I've since bought it in a GOG sale, but haven't gotten around to giving it another try.


I never played the demo but a quick Google tells me the demo is basically Chapter 1. I can't recall any large fights in Chapter 1 of BG2. I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been. If you could describe the fight (like who/what you were up against) I can probably give some meaningful feedback and/or tips smile

Also you can pause BG2 so it's not "true" real time but RTwP, if you were playing it as a real time game I can imagine it wouldn't have been very enjoyable. As an aside: the underlying mechanics in BG2 are turn based as well (D&D) and iirc you can set it up to pause on every turn (I think only your turns though) if you so please.

Originally Posted by Raze
There are lots of ways to do both real time and turn based combat well or poorly, and lots of differences of opinion on where exactly a particular system falls on that scale. Personally, I don't have a strong preference for either (the details of how the combat system is implemented would be the determining factor, but just whether it was real time or turn based).


True enough, but since I like party based games (I consider 4 an *absolute minimum* to consider a game party based, depending on game mechanics this could be higher still) and controlling 4 or more characters in real time is just not realistically feasible I have a strong preference for RTwP or Turn Based.
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 03:08 AM

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.

For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear. When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.
Posted By: PenguinTD Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 04:49 AM
IE based games are not RTwP, it's "fast forward turn based with pause".
Evidence is whenever you engage battle,
1.there are rolls to determine who can initiate action/attack first
2.you can "buffer" command to cast before it's your party member's turn to cast
3.AoE spells are rolled against each target in range in turns
4.You can cancel action and change to another if it's not your turn yet.
5.The matter that you can set the setting to pause when battle starts.

By realtime, which means there will always be cool down, which IE based game doesn't have. In IE based games you can't cast spell one after another "if" it's not your turn yet, they get buffered in queue. Even moves are pseudo to pretend it's realtime when it's not. ie. you can still move while enemy attack animation is on-going, the damage is based on result of roll, even if you are a few step away you still receive damage anyway.( There are no "mana" point either, you get only specific amount of charges, and must rest to regain charges after battle.)

That's why they said it's "modified DnD ver.X rules", because on table top you can't move until it's your turn. If you have no instruction before turn ends, it's essentially give up your priority. If the entire turn is not finished yet, you can still do things. It's all in the combat logs.(If you turn on those dice roll messages.)

Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 03:05 PM
Originally Posted by PenguinTD
IE based games are not RTwP, it's "fast forward turn based with pause".
Evidence is whenever you engage battle,
1.there are rolls to determine who can initiate action/attack first
2.you can "buffer" command to cast before it's your party member's turn to cast
3.AoE spells are rolled against each target in range in turns
4.You can cancel action and change to another if it's not your turn yet.
5.The matter that you can set the setting to pause when battle starts.

By realtime, which means there will always be cool down, which IE based game doesn't have. In IE based games you can't cast spell one after another "if" it's not your turn yet, they get buffered in queue. Even moves are pseudo to pretend it's realtime when it's not. ie. you can still move while enemy attack animation is on-going, the damage is based on result of roll, even if you are a few step away you still receive damage anyway.( There are no "mana" point either, you get only specific amount of charges, and must rest to regain charges after battle.)

That's why they said it's "modified DnD ver.X rules", because on table top you can't move until it's your turn. If you have no instruction before turn ends, it's essentially give up your priority. If the entire turn is not finished yet, you can still do things. It's all in the combat logs.(If you turn on those dice roll messages.)



Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition". Let's keep it simple. There are two "main" types, real time and turn-based. It's clear that there are many different ways to implement a real time game, there is not only one way. The possiblities range from fast paced hack'n'slay to very low paced "pause based" real time combat like in the IE games. Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing. In many ways the old IE games felt like some sort of turn-based game because you had(?) to pause often and therefore you could really play it like some sort of turn-based game in which you choose the end of turn by yourself (when pausing the game). But, yes indeed, the IE games had the DnD mechanics and it's inner turn-based time system but that's not the same thing as a turn-based combat system in which the player is forced to very specific and mechanical turns and attack orders (based on initiative) and things like that. In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".
So the IE games ARE real time combat games because orders are not performed turn-by-turn and person-after-person but simultanously. You cannot argue against it. But yes, you can give the games some sort of "turn-based feeling" by using the puase funcionality often and regularly which is almost a requirement in high difficulty settings.

Imo the range of real time designs is much bigger than the very specific turn-based system. But you can still create very good games with both systms, especially for parties (since turn-based is quite senseless without a party).
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.

For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear. When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.


Shame on you for not playing BG 2. How can you call yourself a true RPG fan without having played BG 2? wink

There is one simple way to make the game less "hectic": just enable the auto-pausing option in the setting when you spot enemies. Then you can sort the whole thing without the need of giving fast orders and take your time for considering a strategy. And after that just leave one finger constantly over the pause button to be able to interrupt the gameplay in the second something happens which requires your micromanagement skills (low health, death, spell casted, change of position, new enemy spotted, change of weapons,.....)
It is faster than a turn-based game, no question, but you will get used to it and you really have to use the pause funcion VERY often, especially in high difficulty. But when you get arranged to that the game offers a much more fluid and immersive gameplay than most of the turn-based games which suffer from a "too mechanical" and slowed-down gameplay, especially if they use melee tactics (it's not that prominent in games which are based on ranged combat like XCOM).
So I will see how D:OS turns out. I think that it will be a great game, but I haven't seen that much of the actual combat systems and the balancing (since these kind of things are not really finished in pre-alpha). So lets see if it can come even close to my all-time favorite combat system of BG 2 (or Icewind Dale 2 which even improved on that a bit).... wink

Sidenote: one of the benefits of BG 2 was the adjustable AI settings of your characters/party members. You can for example forbid your ranger to automatically attack enemies. Or you can order your healer to always heal party members if their health is below a certain percentage (if the healer has a spell left)....:)
Posted By: rupuka Ok, second worst after QTEs - 16/05/13 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by LordCrash

fluid and immersive gameplay than most of the turn-based games
Even as a fan of BG, i found RTwP to be the least immersive kind of gameplay.
Sure, the logistics of a battle in which everybody takes turns to act is laughable at best, but with some time and, if everybody in the game is following the rules, i can just roll with it. The problem i have is the P in RTwP, pausing everyone's actions feels really intrusive, it never gives me the change to immerse myself when the game is constantly reminded me that i'm interacting with the world in a entirely different way that its inhabitants, and in a really blunt way, the transition is not organic or automatic, you are always aware of this because you have to perform it (there is some options in the game, but outside of pause on enemy sighted and pause on trap found, they just basically make you push the space bar a lot more).
Posted By: PenguinTD Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition".

Nah, the underlying mechanism is not "realtime" for sure.
By realtime, it means when I press something, if I'm not in animation of doing another, it starts right away. If I moved out of attacking range while enemy attack starts, I shouldn't be hit. If I saw a long casting spell, I should be able to react and evade or counter. In IE based game you can't do any of these. That's the main reason Diablo got popular in the first place, because it only roll dice when you hit to check for miss/resist/critical, and of course drops.

Quote

Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing.

If you try to stack another spell before all parties in the turn finished, it should either fail or only come out when next turn starts and it's your turn to action.(It's being so long, and I think BG1 should be the former, and BG2 latter.)

And no, cool-down is there for balance and to prevent you stacking, thus increase the requirement for micromanagement to keep you on your toes. If you can stack spell in say Diablo 3, kiting would be so boring you fell asleep for endless click back and forth, and only spam spell key if it runs out. And by realtime, if you stack, it should come out right after your character becomes idle or only moving, which is not the case in IE games.



Quote

In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".

Which IE games do none of these, it buffers the order, and only perform it when it comes to that character's turn. There is no simultaneous action happen in any given time of IE games, it's a given fact that all actions are based on rolls, except movement with its special condition.
The simultaneous feeling of warrior's strike and wizard spell hitting almost at the same time is an well crafted illusion. (ie. if I gave a stealth theif's attack last, or pause after I saw rolls of first attack, then issue order, it will be rolled faster then my wizard's spell. ) If you also remember that all try and true synchronized attack orders gets interrupted when you encounter fast enemies, it brought you back to the turn-based nature of IE.

And the matter you can auto pause on your turn or each round is further proof that it's more turn-based than you would like to believe.

I think this system goes so far all the way to even NeverWinter Nights, which is closer to true hybrid of realtime and turn-based in my opinion. After NWN, RPGs departs to turn-based, Final Fantasy style turn-based(with action bar to fill), BioWare(true RTwP) style after NWN, and hack'n'slash.

There are just my opinions, and you may say to be able to play in realtime makes a game realtime in your definition. And I think it is possible to do a mod to enable this type of play, if this part of engine(roll/action) is exposed in the script part of a mod.
Posted By: DarkNeo Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 07:30 PM
I in turn-based combat system I see too unnatural.

For the videos I've seen, let it rather go running, we find 2 enemies, the game will pause and start the fight, each with their turn.

While it is the turn to one, the other, are left standing there like nothing, not even a fighting stance, take a hit and still standing there as if nothing had happened.

Do not know, do not really like, he takes action, and the fun of a hack and slash.

For my taste, Divine Divinity was GREAT!

Why not follow in the same line?

Edit: Or at least it is in real time, but with the ability to pause the game and plan the battle, so we be happy at all.
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 08:06 PM

The animations are not all done in the pre-alpha builds shown during the kickstarter (most of the death animations were not done and the henchmen running animation looked bad until late in the kickstarter, etc). By the time the game is released characters should take a fighting stance, react to hits, etc.
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by PenguinTD
Originally Posted by LordCrash

Hm, but that's just your own type of "definition".

Nah, the underlying mechanism is not "realtime" for sure.
By realtime, it means when I press something, if I'm not in animation of doing another, it starts right away. If I moved out of attacking range while enemy attack starts, I shouldn't be hit. If I saw a long casting spell, I should be able to react and evade or counter. In IE based game you can't do any of these. That's the main reason Diablo got popular in the first place, because it only roll dice when you hit to check for miss/resist/critical, and of course drops.

Yeah, that's your definition of "real-time" but not mine. Diablo got popular because it was very fast-paced and you didn't have to use many tactics or things like that which you have to use in a party based game. Sure, the IE games are no hack'n'slay games but imo not every rea time combat game is a hack'n'slay game. Rolling dice/probability systems and the use of some "time unit" are nothing which can't be used in a real time combat game. But I will come back to that below.

Quote
Quote

Cool-down ablities and stacking of spells/attacks is not a basic requirement of real time combat games, these elements are only attemps to minimize the micromanagement while pausing.

If you try to stack another spell before all parties in the turn finished, it should either fail or only come out when next turn starts and it's your turn to action.(It's being so long, and I think BG1 should be the former, and BG2 latter.)

And no, cool-down is there for balance and to prevent you stacking, thus increase the requirement for micromanagement to keep you on your toes. If you can stack spell in say Diablo 3, kiting would be so boring you fell asleep for endless click back and forth, and only spam spell key if it runs out. And by realtime, if you stack, it should come out right after your character becomes idle or only moving, which is not the case in IE games.

Don't mix up party based games and games in which you only play with one character (like BG2 and Diablo). It's something completely different to manage a whole party with different skills/classes/types and to fight with only one character. In a party based game stacking of spells/skills is made to reduce micromanagment (to "casulize" it) by reducing the time you need to give your party members new orders each time they performed something. That would be for sure boring as hell in a hack'n'slay game like Diablo, no question. Cool-down can be used for balancing, right, but it's also a system which fits more to the wishes of the "new generation" of players who are not used to resting systems (like in BG2) which has its own problems.

And what's the point of your first sentence? Sure the actions of a stacked order will performed one after the other and not simultanously but that's not the point or at least I don't know where I had neglected that....


Quote
Quote

In real time party games you could choose yourself which of your characters you want to give which order in the sequence you like. And in the end everyone will perform the orders simultanously and not "turn-by-turn".

Which IE games do none of these, it buffers the order, and only perform it when it comes to that character's turn. There is no simultaneous action happen in any given time of IE games, it's a given fact that all actions are based on rolls, except movement with its special condition.
The simultaneous feeling of warrior's strike and wizard spell hitting almost at the same time is an well crafted illusion. (ie. if I gave a stealth theif's attack last, or pause after I saw rolls of first attack, then issue order, it will be rolled faster then my wizard's spell. ) If you also remember that all try and true synchronized attack orders gets interrupted when you encounter fast enemies, it brought you back to the turn-based nature of IE.

And the matter you can auto pause on your turn or each round is further proof that it's more turn-based than you would like to believe.

Well, if the game gives me the illusion that all my team members perform their orders simultanously there is in fact no difference for me to a "real" real time combat system. wink
You cannot neglect that the feeling of playing BG2 differs from playing a real turn-based game like Fallout or XCOM. If it's just an illusion, fine, I'm fine with that. Games are all about illusions and in the end the feeling and while playing matters the most to me (and not the systems/coding on which the games is based). I know that the IE games are based on the turn-based P&P DnD rules and I also know that they adapted these rules to a certain extend to make the game a RTwP game. Sure, the time units are stil turns/rounds but every game, even a hack'n'slay type of game needs some unit in which ingame time is measures. IMO it doesn't matter if this time units are turns/rounds or real-time seconds, that's just the coding and doesn't have anything to do with my gameplay experience.

But I think that's the difference between us two: you seem to define a game by its underlining systems but I define it by its actual gameplay. But tbh, the IE games are somewhere in the middle between a pure hack'n'slay game (which is not suited for a party based game) and a real turn-based game. So if you want to decide on a combat system for a party-based RPG you have to choose either RTwP (like the IE games) or turn-based (like XCOM). Now you can say "Hey, but both of them are some kind of turn-based system!", but it doesn't simplify it by any means. It's just a different wording of two things which are quite different while playing. wink
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 09:12 PM
Originally Posted by DarkNeo
I in turn-based combat system I see too unnatural.

For the videos I've seen, let it rather go running, we find 2 enemies, the game will pause and start the fight, each with their turn.

While it is the turn to one, the other, are left standing there like nothing, not even a fighting stance, take a hit and still standing there as if nothing had happened.

Do not know, do not really like, he takes action, and the fun of a hack and slash.

For my taste, Divine Divinity was GREAT!

Why not follow in the same line?

Edit: Or at least it is in real time, but with the ability to pause the game and plan the battle, so we be happy at all.


You have to combine an RPG (story, character development, quests, dialogues, .....) with some sort of combat system and you have to generally choose between two directions: strategy or action. If you want to make an more fast-paced and action-oriented RPG you would use a real-time system and if you want to make a more strategic RPG you would use a turn-based system. Obviously Larian wanted to make a more strategic RPG so they used the latter. You don't have to agree on that (I would prefer a RTwP system myself) but you should respect it. But of course you have to like strategic games to a certain extend to have fun with D:OS. If you only like fast-paced action RPGs D:OS might be the wrong game for you. But don't be sad, there are much fast-paced action games (also RPGs) on the market so you will find some other games to have fun with. smile
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

I am going to go out on a limb and assume unfamiliarity with the mechanics made things harder for you than they should have been.

Undoubtedly. At the time, though, it didn't seem worth the effort to check for options that could help. Nothing in particular about the other gameplay elements at the start of the demo was that appealing, so I didn't give the combat another shot.


You have been missing out.

Quote
For the fight in question, entering a largish area I sent 2 party member off to the right to fight a few bats, and the rest started left for another weak-ish opponent or two, when a bear came in from the front, so 2 (maybe just 1) of the left group went straight and had a tough time until the 1 (possibly 2) on the left was done and could join in attacking the bear.


I am very sure there are no bears anywhere in that chapter, so either that was added for the demo or it was something else (a Golem maybe, though nowhere do you run into a golem alongside mephits, so...?). And yes, I have played this game *a lot*.

Quote
When that hectic fight (even with pause) was done, I realized I hadn't checked on the two that went right for awhile, and (wondering if they were still alive) found them standing around doing nothing, with barely any damage. Obviously it was my fault for not paying attention to everyone, or checking if there were any notifications or automatic settings for when a character was done doing what he was told to do, but at the time, even if there were such settings it seemed like there would still be too much babysitting required.


Yeah, the problem I see here is you not being used to having to keep track of multiple characters. It most likely takes some getting used to if you come from games like Divine Divinity that don't have any notion of a "party" but imho it is well worth the effort.

In case you *do* decide to give BG another shot (which I would higly recommend you do if you enjoy RPGs), don't start with BG1 in the mistaken belief that would be a good idea for the story (while you will obviously miss out on some minor things it's not worth missing out on the HUGE improvement BG2 is over BG1 imo), BG2 is a lot better in many respects not in the least of which is accessibility.
Posted By: DarkNeo Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 10:36 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

The animations are not all done in the pre-alpha builds shown during the kickstarter (most of the death animations were not done and the henchmen running animation looked bad until late in the kickstarter, etc). By the time the game is released characters should take a fighting stance, react to hits, etc.


Ok, I honestly never played a game of turn-based combat, I think that only the GBA Pokemons. : D

But in this case, I will give my vote of confidence, and so far, all titles that launched are great!

For example, consider Divine Divinity amused me more than Diablo 2.

And Divine 2 is one of the best 3D ARPG games I've played.

So for me, I'll buy Dragon Commander and Original Sin.

I realized that Larian Studios develops its thinking about the fun games, so hopefully I surprised, and they say, out there do me a fan of turn-based RPG hehe
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 16/05/13 10:37 PM
Well, BG should be played as saga, starting with BG1. And with the latest mods you are able to use the technology of BG2 for BG1 (or you can use the EE but I'm not that convinced yet...) wink
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 17/05/13 03:05 AM
I am very sure there are no bears anywhere in that chapter

If it wasn't a level created just for the demo, maybe that fight was from a different game demo. I do specifically remember the start of the BG 2 demo, though (freeing Minsc), and was put off IE games until comments in a few topics here convinced me to get Planescape: Torment. After playing that I was willing to give BG another try, but never got around to it.


It most likely takes some getting used to if you come from games like Divine Divinity that don't have any notion of a "party" but imho it is well worth the effort.

I had played lots of party based RPGs before then, just not ones (AFAIR) where different groups could be fighting far enough apart that you couldn't see both at the same time, and where (by default) characters would stand around without any kind of notice after defeating one opponent while their party members were fighting for their lives.
Posted By: Jack Dandy Re: Real-time combat - 17/05/13 10:00 AM
The combat in DivDiv and Div DKS was repetitive and boring.. I'm glad they're changing it up this time around.

Posted By: Stabbey Re: Real-time combat - 17/05/13 10:47 AM
Yeah, the melee combat in Divine Divinity really was not very good. Just remembering the final act of the game is enough to keep me from playing with another melee character again.

In comparison, I liked Divinity 2's combat because it was faster paced and there was at least more than one attack animation.
Posted By: Joram Re: Real-time combat - 17/05/13 10:53 AM
Try a Battle or Mage or Ranger Priest build, that's Never boring !
On the contrary, it's a very addictive combat playground ! ;-)

Just me, loving DKS smile
A freaking funny fantastic fruit fiesta ....
Apples & Pears ...
Oranges & Bananas !!!

Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 20/05/13 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by Raze

[color:orange]It most likely takes some getting used to if you come from games like Divine Divinity that don't have any notion of a "party" but imho it is well worth the effort.


I had played lots of party based RPGs before then, just not ones (AFAIR) where different groups could be fighting far enough apart that you couldn't see both at the same time, and where (by default) characters would stand around without any kind of notice after defeating one opponent while their party members were fighting for their lives.


Well, you should check the manual. You can give your team mates custom behaviours in BG(2). You can order them to attack on sight for example. Then they will attack every enemy they see and they will never just stand around while other teammates are killed. The point is that in BG you have to take care about that sort of micromanagement. And you shouldn't be involved in different fights at different places at the same time. Keeping your group together and well placed (fighters in front to block enemies, mages, rangers and priests behind them for ranged attacks and support) is a key strategy in BG to survive difficult fights. If your party is spread over the map you've done it wrong. I haven't thought that you would give up on such a masterpiece as the BG saga just after playing it for some minutes(?) and without at least getting used to the gameplay and learning the core game and combat mechanics.... wink

But yes, 50% of your time with BG will be micromanamgent of your party. That's part of the game..... wink

And as a small note: combat in BG 2 is far better than in Planescape: Torment....
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 20/05/13 02:56 AM
50% of your time with BG will be micromanamgent of your party.

So I should have checked the manual to find out the default settings could be configured to drop the micromanagement all the way down to 50%? Gee, if I had know i could get it that low I would have bought it at full price rather than wait for a GOG D&D promo sale. suspicion

The combat in PS:T wasn't great, but it didn't require any micromanagement (only the occasional tough fight required characters being directed individually).
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 20/05/13 07:26 PM
Well, BG is a turn-based type of game in a real-time engine. So yes, you have (or should) do everything on your own with every character and every few seconds (or ingame turns). You can give them behaviours but they are not the ideal way of playing the game in every aspect (like positioning). But it's clearly helpful if mages cast some spells on their own (like armour spells for themselves at the beginning of a fight) or priests can heal on their own. There will still be much micromanagement but of course less than in a situation in which you have to do everything on your own (like in a real turn-based game....)

In the end, there can't be more micromanagement in a real-time game than in a turn-based game (almost by definition)....... wink
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 20/05/13 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
50% of your time with BG will be micromanamgent of your party.

So I should have checked the manual to find out the default settings could be configured to drop the micromanagement all the way down to 50%? Gee, if I had know i could get it that low I would have bought it at full price rather than wait for a GOG D&D promo sale. suspicion

The combat in PS:T wasn't great, but it didn't require any micromanagement (only the occasional tough fight required characters being directed individually).


That doesn't even make sense, PS:T en BG2 are both AD&D games using the exact same game engine with a slightly different UI (PS:T has by far the worse UI of the two imnsho), I can only assume that BG2's combat actually requires more tactics than PS:T's (I'm still playing that game, not even near finished yet), there also supposedly is a lot more of it in BG2.

Originally Posted by LordCrash
But it's clearly helpful if mages cast some spells on their own (like armour spells for themselves at the beginning of a fight) or priests can heal on their own.

While you can have them do that I think it tends to end up being counter productive, you don't want to use your shield spells on an easy fight only to find you're in an area where you can't safely rest...
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 21/05/13 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by theBlackDragon
That doesn't even make sense, PS:T en BG2 are both AD&D games using the exact same game engine with a slightly different UI

And as I mentioned (or at least implied), I played them years apart. I may have been in a different mood / mindset when I tried PS:T, or maybe I had played enough other games since the BG 2 demo that I had gotten used to dealing with issues like those which put me off originally. At the very least I paid for PS:T, so quitting, if I had wanted to, would have meant wasting $10, or so; it cost me nothing but a little time uninstalling the BG 2 demo.

The beginning of PS:T was much, much more interesting to me than the start of BG2 (for example, I wasn't a fan of the cliché Minsc appeared to be, or his reaction to how you get him out of the cell, while Mort and the Nameless One were intriguing). A strong story can make up for other issues, and as I mentioned earlier, I didn't find anything in the BG 2 demo worth giving the combat a second shot.
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 21/05/13 12:14 PM
PLAY BG2, Raze! That's an order! smile

Just kidding, but turning BG2 down because you didn't like the beginning that much is not very clever. You've probably only seen lees than 1% of the whole game and there is much more to come than just the first view dialogues lines from Minsc. If you don't like him you can just leave him or throw him out of your party btw.... wink
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 21/05/13 12:28 PM

BG is in my backlog of games to play, along with a bunch of others. Now that I have a new computer, I'll probably start in on some of the newer games first.
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 21/05/13 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by Raze

BG is in my backlog of games to play, along with a bunch of others. Now that I have a new computer, I'll probably start in on some of the newer games first.


Haha, no offense meant Raze. It's just that BG2 is still pretty much the best RPG I've played to date (personal opinion, of course). (as an OT aside: I'd probably put Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines on the 2nd spot)

It's probably the time difference though, I have a hard time really getting into PS:T now as well for some reason though when I start playing I keep going...
Posted By: Raze Re: Real-time combat - 21/05/13 11:16 PM
Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines

I added Redemption to my first purchase on GOG (for Divine Divinity), because at the time I thought it was silly to charge a credit card for only $6 (a bunch of bundles and $1 purchases later and I'm ok with that now). Anyway, it is also still in my backlog, so I haven't actively looked for Bloodlines.

I may start with newer games, but I was also actually thinking of going through the Ultima series in the not too distant future. I'm not sure I'll be able to handle the graphics/UI in the early ones, though. I still have a folder with the manual and a couple world maps and walkthroughs I printed off for the complete Ultima VII re-release that I got in 1995. I also have the retail version of 8 (thankfully from a bargain bin), but after a lot of tweaking to get the sound and a couple other things working properly, I didn't get very far in the game. From a video review, I think 9 may be so bad that it is good.
Posted By: Helena L Re: Real-time combat - 22/05/13 07:29 PM
I just started Baldur's Gate (the original) for the first time. I'm fine with RTwP combat in general, but I'm finding the combat in BG pretty frustrating, even though I've modded it to use the BG2 engine. Part of the problem is that I've never played D&D, so I don't really understand how the combat works (in terms of mechanics) or what half the stats mean. (Also, I hate to say this, but the voice acting in this game is just plain bad. If I hear Jaheira call me 'omnipresent authority figure' one more time, I'm going to kick her all the way back to Candlekeep.)

I don't know, maybe I just need to take more time to get used to it? Or maybe I should try BG2 instead?
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 22/05/13 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Raze
Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines

I added Redemption to my first purchase on GOG (for Divine Divinity), because at the time I thought it was silly to charge a credit card for only $6 (a bunch of bundles and $1 purchases later and I'm ok with that now). Anyway, it is also still in my backlog, so I haven't actively looked for Bloodlines.


I just want to warn you/point out that Redemption is *nothing at all* like Bloodlines. The only similarity is the setting (even the stories aren't related in any way). I didn't like Redemption one bit, *loved* Bloodlines though. Since the stories aren't related don't feel bad about dropping Redemption and charging into Bloodlines if you don't like the former.

Also, just some advice, don't start a first Bloodlines playthrough as a Malkavian, you'll get MUCH more out of playing a Malkavian if you've finished the game before (not to mention that understanding what *you* are saying is bleedin' hard if you have no familiarity with the Clan at all).
Second bit of advice, *do* play the game a second time as Malkavian if you enjoyed your first playthrough.
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 22/05/13 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by Helena L
I just started Baldur's Gate (the original) for the first time. I'm fine with RTwP combat in general, but I'm finding the combat in BG pretty frustrating, even though I've modded it to use the BG2 engine. Part of the problem is that I've never played D&D, so I don't really understand how the combat works (in terms of mechanics) or what half the stats mean. (Also, I hate to say this, but the voice acting in this game is just plain bad. If I hear Jaheira call me 'omnipresent authority figure' one more time, I'm going to kick her all the way back to Candlekeep.)

I don't know, maybe I just need to take more time to get used to it? Or maybe I should try BG2 instead?


I'd advise starting with BG2 and then playing BG1. BG2 is a lot more forgiving than BG1 (and imho just all around a better game) and if you enjoy the second you can always go back to the first game, but you'll be *much* better prepared. (I played 2 before 1 and I don't feel as if I've majorly missed out by doing so)
Posted By: theNILE Re: Real-time combat - 23/05/13 03:00 PM
I'm currently most the way through Baldur's gate 1. Honestly, I like DnD as a PnP game, but not so much as a computer game (even without the social aspects). There's a lot of names for status and terminology in DnD and item stats are confusing sometimes due to descriptions. If you have the Enhanced Edition I'd suggest not trying to meta-game for a saving play-through since it'll probably be fairly easy. Apparently you can mod the game though.
Posted By: Helena L Re: Real-time combat - 24/05/13 09:02 AM
Originally Posted by theBlackDragon
I'd advise starting with BG2 and then playing BG1. BG2 is a lot more forgiving than BG1 (and imho just all around a better game) and if you enjoy the second you can always go back to the first game, but you'll be *much* better prepared. (I played 2 before 1 and I don't feel as if I've majorly missed out by doing so)

Just started BG2 yesterday, and you're right: I like it much better. Acting is better, dialogue is better, combat is less frustrating, and the story so far seems more interesting. There are still a few things that irk me, like the crappy pathfinding, but overall I'm enjoying this a whole lot more than the first game. Perhaps I'll go back and play BG1 later.
Posted By: Tarick Killar Re: Real-time combat - 24/05/13 12:14 PM
If I'm roleplaying both characters, a summon and a henchman, how would you expect me to play in real time?
Posted By: Nemesis1 Re: Real-time combat - 25/05/13 02:22 PM
I'm suprised that so many of you are worried that the turn based fights of Original Sin are going to distract from the immersion. Have you played games like Fallout 1-2, Arcanum, etc? Or any roguelike like Angband or NetHack, games that don't even have graphics but still are among the most intense experiences you can have in gaming!
Originally Posted by Raze
50% of your time with BG will be micromanamgent of your party.

So I should have checked the manual to find out the default settings could be configured to drop the micromanagement all the way down to 50%? Gee, if I had know i could get it that low I would have bought it at full price rather than wait for a GOG D&D promo sale. suspicion

The combat in PS:T wasn't great, but it didn't require any micromanagement (only the occasional tough fight required characters being directed individually).
So true! If you play a good party in Baldur's Gate 2, it is very likely that the vampiers of Amn become your enemies. That means that you can't go out and buy a bottle of milk in Amn without being attacked by a bunch of vampires, and they make very short work of your heroes unless they have "Protection from Undead". Also, the vampires are immune to normal weapons. That means that your archers and slingers have to switch to +2 shots/arrows everytime they take a walk in Amn, and that you group your heroes together to cast the Protection spell on them all at once. The spell lasts for an inconveniently short time too, so you'll have to do this pretty often. If you don't have mapped a lot of Protection from Undead castings on your casters, you also have to go to sleep a lot to regain the spells you've used up. That's just how Baldur's Gate 2 is.

Many people are prepared to get used to the constant micro tediousness because of the memorable characters and story, but I was never able to do it myself. I almost finished Baldur 1 with my then girlfriend as she was a major fan and controlled 4 of the 6 characters over LAN, leaving me to do the dialogues and control the rangers. That was pretty fun. But really, the micromanagement is hell.

Planescape: Torment has an even better story, maybe the best ever told in a computer game, and while it demands the same type of party control, it differs in several important aspects. First of all, enemies hardly ever deal status effects like paralysation or posion and seldom requires advanced weapaons to hurt. It does happen that you get the "weapon ineffective" message from time to time, but generally you have the weapons you need and archers. As there is only one archer in the game you don't have to switch back and froth arrows depending on who you face either. Also, the battles are much less frequent and finally it doesn't even matter if you die. Your companions dying might be a little inconvenient but you can resurrect them much more easily than in Baldur.

By the way, does anybody here like Icewind Dale or Icewind Dale 2? I've heard that they are like Baldur, only with less story and more focus on combat and tactics? Is this any fun? Or maybe the lack of a story like that of Baldur makes the tactics bearable; could it be possible to enjoy the fighting when they aren't keeping you from unfolding a great tale?
Posted By: Jenga Re: Real-time combat - 25/05/13 06:31 PM
Personally I miss the turn based combat, it allowed for far more strategy as you actually had time to plan attacks. I always wondered how turn based combat seemingly disappeared over night. I suppose when one game did it well everyone else just decided to jump on the band wagon.
Posted By: Helena L Re: Real-time combat - 26/05/13 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by Nemesis1
If you play a good party in Baldur's Gate 2, it is very likely that the vampiers of Amn become your enemies. That means that you can't go out and buy a bottle of milk in Amn without being attacked by a bunch of vampires, and they make very short work of your heroes unless they have "Protection from Undead". Also, the vampires are immune to normal weapons. That means that your archers and slingers have to switch to +2 shots/arrows everytime they take a walk in Amn, and that you group your heroes together to cast the Protection spell on them all at once. The spell lasts for an inconveniently short time too, so you'll have to do this pretty often. If you don't have mapped a lot of Protection from Undead castings on your casters, you also have to go to sleep a lot to regain the spells you've used up. That's just how Baldur's Gate 2 is.

Thanks for warning me. wink
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 27/05/13 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Helena L
Originally Posted by Nemesis1
If you play a good party in Baldur's Gate 2, it is very likely that the vampiers of Amn become your enemies. That means that you can't go out and buy a bottle of milk in Amn without being attacked by a bunch of vampires, and they make very short work of your heroes unless they have "Protection from Undead". Also, the vampires are immune to normal weapons. That means that your archers and slingers have to switch to +2 shots/arrows everytime they take a walk in Amn, and that you group your heroes together to cast the Protection spell on them all at once. The spell lasts for an inconveniently short time too, so you'll have to do this pretty often. If you don't have mapped a lot of Protection from Undead castings on your casters, you also have to go to sleep a lot to regain the spells you've used up. That's just how Baldur's Gate 2 is.

Thanks for warning me. wink


He is exaggerating though. Just putting a few copies of that spell in your spellbook along with restoration deals with vampires (and other undead, Ghouls do this too iirc) just fine and if you play your cards right you shouldn't even be needing the latter all that often (or if it bothers you: get a wand with the appropriate spell assuming they exist, I dunno): your fighters should be taking most (preferably all) of those hits. It's generally fairly obvious when you'll run into undead too, just prepare accordingly.

Note also that vampires only become "common" after a certain part in the story and if you still have trouble dealing with them by then you're in for a real treat later...(hint: buy the Shield of Balduran from the bonus merchant in the shop on Waukeen's Promenade. You can thank me later.)

Not that there aren't many plain annoying enemies or mechanics in the game, but I wouldn't consider Vampires among the worst, sure their ability is a pain if you're badly prepared, but it's easy enough to deal with as they just drain strength. Now Mind Flayers (HAI! I drained ur int, now u can fill in ur spellbook again! Heehee!) and Elder Orbs (well basically everything that casts Imprisonment or any other spell that *removes* someone from your party)

Ofc if you are low on "healers" it might be more annoying to deal with Vampires, my favourite party for the first part of the game was: me (wizard), Minsc (and Boo), Jaheira, Viconia, Korgan and Yoshimo.
Posted By: LordCrash Re: Real-time combat - 27/05/13 09:45 PM
Micromanagement in BG2 is not hell, it's heaven.... It means full control because you can decide WHEN you want to take over control. In turn-based combat you are forced to take over control every round, there is no "automated" fighting option. That's the immersion breaker (and yes, it's the same thing with Fallout 1+2 and Arcanum).

And vampires are not that hard in BG2. Mind flayers and beholders are much worse, not to speak about liches like Kangaxx or dragons. But yes, combat in BG2 can be hard, especially if you are not well prepared. And being well prepared means that you have to rest often and that you have to buy stuff which neutralizes your weaknesses. That's just a part of the gameplay.

Btw my archer(s) always carry at least arrows +1 or +2, only changing to normal arrows when fighting against very weak enemies. But there is simply no point of not equipping them with good arrows. And having magicial weapons in your inventory for certain enemies is just part of the preparation for battle....
Posted By: rattle Re: Real-time combat - 07/06/13 03:59 PM
The only reason I am interested in this game and have backed it is because of turn based tactical combat!
Posted By: Bearhug Re: Real-time combat - 07/06/13 04:50 PM
Actually, it was the industry (oncemore) which declared one day turn-based combat obsolete, like they tried with decalring PC's and other things obsolete to push their interest (in this case real time fighting) or trying to monopolize a whole industry (by declaring an open game platform an outlaw).
Screw them, luckily there are always some which don't listen to such megalomaniac statements and things return from the dead smile
Posted By: Starker Re: Real-time combat - 07/06/13 07:12 PM
Originally Posted by Nemesis1
By the way, does anybody here like Icewind Dale or Icewind Dale 2? I've heard that they are like Baldur, only with less story and more focus on combat and tactics? Is this any fun? Or maybe the lack of a story like that of Baldur makes the tactics bearable; could it be possible to enjoy the fighting when they aren't keeping you from unfolding a great tale?


The story does take a back seat in those games. The games are essentially a long series of fights, but the fights are good and they compensate for the lack of story with a great atmosphere.

I liked them, and I'd say they are at least worth playing through once.
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 07/06/13 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Bearhug
Actually, it was the industry (oncemore) which declared one day turn-based combat obsolete, like they tried with decalring PC's and other things obsolete to push their interest (in this case real time fighting) or trying to monopolize a whole industry (by declaring an open game platform an outlaw).
Screw them, luckily there are always some which don't listen to such megalomaniac statements and things return from the dead smile


I'd say they tried to declare PCs obsolete because consoles are much easier to control, so they could destroy indie developers and squeeze customers for every penny they have to spend...
Posted By: Bearhug Re: Real-time combat - 13/06/13 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by theBlackDragon
I'd say they tried to declare PCs obsolete because consoles are much easier to control, so they could destroy indie developers and squeeze customers for every penny they have to spend...


That's what I meant with 'pushing their interest'. Consoles are easier to use which means you reach a wider customer range which means more money. At the same time you attract more casual gamers to the now broader customer base which means you can (and have to) simplify things to make the majority (which is now the casual console gamers) happy which goes on costs of quality and variety which is fine for the producers as it means less money spend and less good for developers which want to make more a 'game for gamers' and not a 'game from producers which give a damn except for their shareholders;.
Besides watering down game content to more simple, sweatshop friendly formulas, did they also made the broader game audience more receptive to their dictate of release prices from 40 to 60 Dollars as the broader customer base are now more parents which just want to hush their spoiled, troll kids and don't care to wonder if the price might be appropiate for the new title.

Popular counter argument is of course that modern titles do need MUCH larger budgets to cover the costs which is just true to some degree. Because the arket gets flooded with quantity they spend quite a chunk of the budget in the PR department which helps to push those 'spearhead' titles to push their sales and turning the sheep (not weresheeps;) part of the casual gamers to bleat unisono which games are cool/desirable/hip etc. and which are not.
In return that shaped broad mass then works in favor of the big distributors to legitimate their decisions byusing their arguments and accepting their values, that only a title which cost damn much money and has a PR department like a political rally campaign can be good, etc.

Some words of reassurance...
Even those big sweatshop players will never disappear is there at least some points which are reassuring.
- One of the main reasons why and how they were able to attract so many new players aboard for years are graphics as vision is our main sense. Even graphics are overrated in importance, since the graphic craze started with Voodoo and ATI years ago were they the main selling point. Now were graphics reached a point were they all cook with water now again is the edge of graphic over everything alone becoming more dull and games need more then this one point to sell.
That's the time of indies getting back their share of the market by offering besides the mass ware fromthe big ones alternative products which can shine through innovation and/or combining known aspects in a new way.
More games again from gamers for gamers.
- New financing institutions like Kickstarter do help as well in that shifting process as the gamers as well can put to some degree their weight into the process of allowing smaller, independent companies to make their games they want and not bossed around from the big money bags of the corporations.

There will be of course ever some people naive enough to believe because they spend a few dozen to few hundred bucks they can and should have everything their way, but backing is not being a shareholder. This is more of a grassroot approach people. So less trolling and more constructive input as we should believe more in freedom of the artist(s) and not in sweatshops with input through whining or whipping.

Ok, that was a more detailed explination as I shortened in my former statement with the industry 'puhing their interest'.
But I think it was helpful to let that out even it was a biiit longer smile
Posted By: Grinsevent Re: Real-time combat - 14/06/13 12:27 PM
Hi everyone, my complain fits perfectly with the topic. So, I have two things to say :

I just succeeded (or maybe 2 Month ago, when I had time to play video games) to try Temple of elemental Evil, which is a game with tactical combats. This mechanism is just awesome (and the choices in this game are just demential). This kind of thing made me feel in the game and allowed stuff like being swallowed by an giant frog...

Ok, I loved to play DD 3.5 with friends, paper and pens, but anyway, to make it so real, it was just great...

BUT this joy stopped when I had to play against a snake as the animation were JUST TOO SLOW. Please, Larian, allow us to make fiends (and foes) move and attack quickly. I don't mind if a Zombie must be slow, because it's his nature, but one golden rule is to make it move fast enough to not have a too long time where the player wait.

Furthermore, if we could have effects (grabbing, swallowed, flying, hanging, whateverINg), it gonna be awesome (I know, I ask for more than I should, but hey, we trust you guys).


The second thing is how adaptative this turnbased mode is, as you can enter or not in it. If everything go smoothly, fast enough, there won't be any "time distortion" between the player in combat and the player out of it. This is very cool (I think)
Posted By: Bearhug Re: Real-time combat - 14/06/13 04:50 PM
Great idea,
maybe a simple on/off feature or a speed slider for personal custom flavor for immersion can do the trick, in case the game system of someone is too slow by too much action at the same time on the screen.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Real-time combat - 14/06/13 05:29 PM
Too-slow animations is not a case where we need a slider. It's turn-based combat, it only needs one speed: "not a huge pain to sit through when there's a bunch of enemies around." What speed is that? I don't know, but after the Alpha and Beta, you can be sure Larian will.
Posted By: Bearhug Re: Real-time combat - 14/06/13 08:56 PM
Even in a turn-based games does time pass in fights.
You have to try to see the big picture.
What is for one person too slow might be for another too fast.

The cause might be system performance, it might be lack of patience/time, others find too fast annoying when their fighters move like squirrels on speed over the screen, others might love it as they run on caffeine or sugar. Some might even not like the characters move around at all and just let the pc calculate the result even the result might be less splendid because the lack of tactics.
When you design with game mechanics you have to weigh options against eachother before you can narrow them down when things begin to fall after a while into place piece by piece.

I Larian will be able to find a solution for most problems in time. This is just about constructive feedback and not just some thumb up or down comment.
Posted By: Stabbey Re: Real-time combat - 14/06/13 10:14 PM
Maybe so, but if Larian added toggles and sliders for everything that people have suggested toggles and sliders on (and I'm guilty of that as well), the "Options Menu" would be about twenty pages long.
Posted By: EinTroll Re: Real-time combat - 15/06/13 11:25 AM
I find that the options are mostly important for performance tweaks and compatibility.
Preference related tweaks are not as important, as they are easier to live with/tolerate if the game balances said preferences nicely.
Posted By: Bearhug Re: Real-time combat - 15/06/13 05:45 PM
Of course are performance tweaks are more important then anything.
Preferences are after all just preferences, some give a damn and others like them.

They could include in the menu a preference tab but they could not afford to not create an option tab in the menu as options are for performance tweaking, preferences are just personal taste and in most cases unlikely to influence much performance.
Most games I know don't have a preference tab. Is it necessary? Of course not. Would it be bad if it would exist? Not as long content in it can be ignored as some might even think they are guilty to express a preference.

Not every idea would need to be put into such a tab but could be embedded into the game code as sliders are often just one way to handle an idea.
Larian is mature enough to decide themselves if, what and how they might adapt expressed ideas and preferences which people can express in their forum.
If Larian gives a damn about any feedback in the forum then they would be quite meaningless except being a place for pointless pingpong discussions about personal tastes if they not listen or worse, becomming a breeding ground for flames or trolling.
Posted By: Grinsevent Re: Real-time combat - 16/06/13 02:25 PM
Bearhug, this was my idea posting here. I know for sure Larian want to create a true gem, but every idea coming before can be easily used by them.

I hope they give a shit about what we say here, and I know I am pretty reluctant in seeing 1000 times the same path or waiting the foe to reach me...

I don't know who played a game like King's bounty, but sometimes, you want the full cinematic when you summons your thing, other time you prefer to focus on the combat system. I only propose a switch to not frustrate the player, as I was in TOEE, that's all.

As I will be an alpha player/beta player/final product player, I hope I could give relevant feedback, I'm just trying to do so earlier !

PS : I don't say Larian didn't think of this problem, but if they didn't, I prefer to mention it.
Posted By: Dundalis Re: Real-time combat - 21/06/13 01:42 PM
The reason turn based games don't work as well anymore is because games are now more realistic than ever. A gamers mind was more pliable in terms of discarding reality when playing video games in the 90's because that was the level of sophistication in games. Kinda like cheesy 80's movies were popular because that was the level of expectation. Crappy graphics and no voice acting was more than acceptable back then because that was the standard.

These days both games and movies are more realistic than ever (not necessary so much the world/environment, but the physics and dialog/logic). When something becomes unrealistic it's much more noticeable. And fact is turn based combat isn't realistic. People don't have an infinite amount of time to plan their next movement in real life, so it's become less popular. Gamers these days want games to be as realistic as possible (again in a physics/logic sense), and that will continue to grow as games become more technologically advanced. Turn based games will never come back to mainstream they will just get more and more obscure along with other unrealistic aspects of todays games.
Posted By: EinTroll Re: Real-time combat - 21/06/13 02:27 PM
I thought Civ 5 was popular and that's a turn-based game too.

X-COM:EU was hailed as the reviver of turn-based tactical gameplay, and it did it in a rather shoddy way.


The factor I'm tempted to think of in terms of appeal is patience.
It might be just me, but I feel that the younger gaming generation today is too impatient. Which is why the main audience for D:OS is probably a more mature one.
Posted By: Grinsevent Re: Real-time combat - 23/06/13 03:46 PM
EinTroll and Dundalis,

I think both of you are right. In real games (boardgames, chess ...), people play at their turn and it's still famous. For me, a turned based game is really enjoyable ... IF the animations are not too slow ! (And, that's not just me being impatient)
Posted By: theBlackDragon Re: Real-time combat - 23/06/13 05:47 PM
Originally Posted by Dundalis
The reason turn based games don't work as well anymore is because games are now more realistic than ever. A gamers mind was more pliable in terms of discarding reality when playing video games in the 90's because that was the level of sophistication in games. Kinda like cheesy 80's movies were popular because that was the level of expectation. Crappy graphics and no voice acting was more than acceptable back then because that was the standard.

These days both games and movies are more realistic than ever (not necessary so much the world/environment, but the physics and dialog/logic). When something becomes unrealistic it's much more noticeable. And fact is turn based combat isn't realistic. People don't have an infinite amount of time to plan their next movement in real life, so it's become less popular. Gamers these days want games to be as realistic as possible (again in a physics/logic sense), and that will continue to grow as games become more technologically advanced. Turn based games will never come back to mainstream they will just get more and more obscure along with other unrealistic aspects of todays games.


What you are basically saying is that "modern" (using the term very loosely) gamers lack imagination. Unsurprisingly I disagree.
Posted By: Jonlevir Re: Real-time combat - 23/06/13 07:15 PM
I didn't realize that the reason I didn't like some games today was because they had unrealistic aspects, I just thought it was because they were badly made and poorly designed. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that realism is all I really wanted in my fantasy escapist hobby. /sarcasm

In all seriousness, the reason turn based role playing started to die is the growing popularity of the action rpg & the MMORPG. Most people would blame the Diablo games, I personally blame the Infinity games. Turn based disappearing was a design level decision, because of what suits thought was popular, not because "gamers only want realism". As implied in the previous paragraph I don't care about realism because I'm wanting to play a game to get away from the real. Some people like realism, other people couldn't give two flying Damien's about it. Generalizations like "gamers these days want games to be as realistic as possible" are baseless unless backed up with data.
Posted By: AstroZombie Re: Real-time combat - 23/06/13 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by Jonlevir
I didn't realize that the reason I didn't like some games today was because they had unrealistic aspects, I just thought it was because they were badly made and poorly designed. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that realism is all I really wanted in my fantasy escapist hobby. /sarcasm

In all seriousness, the reason turn based role playing started to die is the growing popularity of the action rpg & the MMORPG. Most people would blame the Diablo games, I personally blame the Infinity games. Turn based disappearing was a design level decision, because of what suits thought was popular, not because "gamers only want realism". As implied in the previous paragraph I don't care about realism because I'm wanting to play a game to get away from the real. Some people like realism, other people couldn't give two flying Damien's about it. Generalizations like "gamers these days want games to be as realistic as possible" are baseless unless backed up with data.


Were you trying to cram as much nonsense as you could in this post? If so, then I'd say you've succeeded.

I prefer turn-based to real-time combat because it gives me more control over the situations presented.
Posted By: Grinsevent Re: Real-time combat - 23/06/13 08:15 PM
What gamers always wanted, is to have a good time playing, and everyone is different in his gaming preferences.

For the graphism, in HD, it is just wonderful. Furthermore, it's kinda more "realistic" than a lot of other game I played, with the discussion with your compagnon ...and the world in itself may be full of surprises.

The combat in turn by turn still work pretty well (Heroes 3-4-5 for exemple, but CIV too) and being able to play like that with a friend is a novelty.

Posted By: Horrorscope Re: Real-time combat - 27/06/13 02:50 AM
There were a ton of ARPG's released in the past 18 months and a few more to go. There are very very few true turn based coop RPG's. I can't be happier about DOS choice. People ask for DnD on a computer... People say "Turn based is too slow", especially in MP. Well DnD PnP isn't fast, wasn't meant to be fast, is multiplayer and slow, that is how we liked it. You'd think a game (perhaps this one) can actually be a DnD PnP game so we can play with friends that cannot get together anymore, in a coop game over the net. How this hasn't happened much at all... ever, is hard to believe. Win!!!
© Larian Studios forums