Turn based or not?

Remove all ads!

Indeed. Story is mandatory to me. While nonlinear plot and loads of freedom to customize your characters and abilities etc are essential to some extent, the lack of a good story would feel like... work. It's the thing that gives me immersion, that fuels my imagination, and that makes the game memorable.

I was a hardcore turnbased fan until BG came out. Since then I've never understood the fuss about turnbased vs realtime. The quasi-realtime system of BG has all the advantages of both, and no disadvantages of either. As far as being able to choose between turnbased and realtime goes, I've never seen a working example. Caleb already mentioned Fallout: T. Then there's Arcanum, Ufo: Apocalypse, and some others I don't care to remember. In all of them the RT vs. TB system had resulted in each of the systems working at 50% capacity, IMVEAIO (In My Very Educated And Important Opinion).

Stick to realtime with pause, is what I say. It's easy and it works.

 

Actually BG's Realtime and pause system, while very good and probabl;y representative of how virtually all RPGs will eventually handle combat one day, DOES have disadvantages inherant to real time combat.

First of all, the pathfinding issue. In turn-based games this is not a problem but in RT it is a BIG one still. Order the Dwarf to attack zombie A with his axe and order the elf to shoot zombie B with his bow and order the mage to cast spell on zombie C...etc. for all six pary members and you end up with a dwarf who could not figure out how to walk around the elf in his way and so has decided to run the other direction towards that encampment of ghasts you were hoping to avoid while the mage, trying to get in range to cast his spell has opted to expose himself to the missle fire of the kobols just around the corner rather than take a safer path etc.

Secondly is detail & realism(please do not misunderstand that word to mean that I want soldiers who die of infections and non-fantasy settings and such) in combat. JA2 is so engaging because you can do so many different things with each squad member...aimed attacks(bad guy has heavy body armor? shoot him in the legs and let him crawl after you!) and what not. This kind of stuff simply cannot be done in real time (at this point at least).

As far as being able to choose between TB & RT options, BG does it best with the pause feature(& autopause). Fallout: Tactics sucked pretty bad.

As far as story goes, don't get me wrong. I am VERY appreciative of when the designers/developers are able to craft a decent setting for a game and a scenario to match. I just think that a)If I want to read a REALLY good story, i will pick up Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun tetralogy or somesuch, not play a video game and b0The priority in game design should be first that the game itself is well designed, mechanics-wise. If the game system is well done, there are no shortage of talented storytellers that can be hired to created the scenarios/settings and what not. A poorly designed game system with an interesting take on how to rip Tolkien off in a different way(I am a huge fan of Tolkien rip offs so don't take that as an insult) is of less value to ME than a well designed game system with another "God down and kill the Foozle" dungeon romp as it's vehicle.

IMMMETYO.

 

The only way I could accept it to be turn based (I dont accept 3d for the record) is if they make it in S.P.E.C.I.A.L. game engine. I love the Fallout games and it still impresses me.

 

RuneQuester:

I use the pause in just that manner. I click it on, make the choices I need to make, click it off and click it on a fraction of a second after that again just to see everything starts going as they're supposed to.

If you play quasi-realtime like you were playing a fully realtime game, then yes you will have the problem of NPC's running away from battle in hopes of finding another way in. But if you check everyone's actions all the time, then you'll see it happening when he's moved but a few pixels away, and can hand-walk him along the right path to his goal. Sure this takes a bit more time, but then, does TB not take time?

As for the aiming etc, it can all be done in this realtime-pause system just as well. What's stopping you from picking up a menu with a portrait of your target in it, clicking on the part you want to shoot and how long you want to spend time aiming, and then just unpause?

I really know of no disadvantages RT-P (realtime with pause) would have. In games like UFO, I must agree. For controlling multiple parties in completely different areas of the map, is sure to be a problem. But in games like BG or NWN where all of your people are in the same part of the same area, that one single disadvantage is hardly a problem.

 

I'm all for realtime with pause.

I just can't stand the hit on immersive gameplay a turn-based 'only one moves at a time' idiocy creates. For a turn-based system to work, the turns themselves would need to be extremely short.

However, one rather inspiring system can be seen in Titans of Steel and it's Amiga-era predecessor Mechforce. The game clock runs in one second intervals, but each 'action' the player can assign on the mechs takes a varying amount of seconds. Actions become interleaved without any need for 'initiative'. Thus, firing a huge autocannon sure hurts, but your adversary may still get the edge since his weapon is ready to fire in less time than yours.