Hertston wrote:Mixed feelings on the TB v RT combat thing (this cropped up over at the TF boards as well, BTW).
Perfect, I get some straw men to knock down flat. I've been itching to tackle some for awhile, thank you for a good number.
I like turn-based games, always have done. Thing is though, that the best turn-based combat has always been found in games based around it (XCom, JA2, S2) - where the combat is the point of the game.
Noted.
That doesn't mean real-time can't work as well with combat games - personally I thought FT did it pretty well as did SoA (minority opinions here, I know
).
Oops, there you go and say something incredibly stupid. "That doesn't mean real-time can't work as well with combat games"? With all the options you've EVER been presented with in TB games, have you seen anything remotely as in-depth or well-designed for RT? No, RT often leads to designs that are simplistic, repetitive, and a chore.
Suggestion for next time, pay attention to your own examples before you say something that stupid again.
In RPGs it's a little different. Combat is a side-dish, not the main course, and going turn-based can slow things up. IMHO that can (that doesn't mean "always does") be detrimental to the "flow" of the game, and just make playing a chore. KoTOR, which I thoroughly enjoyed (although I'll happily agree it's much more of an interactive movie than an RPG proper) would have been absolutely awful with turn-based combat. [Maybe because the combat, at a base level, SUCKED? - Rosh] The system it has has it's faults, but at least the game can flow, and an improved version of that might well be the best thing for The Fall.
Now this is even more stupid. Apparently, the combat sucked in Fallout because it was turn-based and a lot of it...well, that's according to YOUR brand of logic.
Let me correct your ignorance. Imagine of a RPG where the combat was done well AND the speech/interaction was done well. There's no reason for the speech to be good and for the combat to be some half-ass shamble. That puts the focus of it into a munchkin killfest, that is hindered by the speech throwing a veruy different tone to the game. Hey, that sounds almost like how Baldur's Gate was from the beginning, except that it had both poor combat and poor writing. Or, even better, like Planescape: Torment, where the story was well done, but the combat threw the feel all to hell and hindered the presentation of the story.
Simply put, BioWare's brand of Diablo cloning sucks. It isn't a jump-in slashfest, so it doesn't appeal to that crowd, but as CRPGs, they tend to be bland and despite BioWare's newfound fascination with three-dimensional graphics, their writing and design is still very one-dimensional. Fact is, all they have to go for them is the reputation the D&D license brought them.
There's no excuse for a poor combat system or even a half-ass combat system, whether it is the focus of the game or not. There shouldn't be ANY reason for ANY aspect of a game to suck, unless it is of necessary style reasons (like most CRPGs not needing to focus upon graphics, but the interface should still be good). For instance, could you imagine JA2's combat coupled with a Fallout depth of setting and role-playing? It sounds pretty damn good, doesn't it? It doesn't mean that you
have to or
should wade through tiresome and repetitous combat, which you'll be sick of because it doesn't let you make any real decisions while at the same time it's also not fast enough to prevent narcolepsy. At least with turn-based, people are making decisions. In Real-time, especially in BioWare's manner, they are sitting there, looking at the screen like a mentally vacant sheep.
) are in development right now ? Most good games offer something no other game does, even it's only a different combination of existing gameplay elements. Again, not something you can judge until you play it... it's how it all fits together.
