Guys, I've been enlightened! RTwP is not that good.

[Raghar]

and recognize the fun of unbalanced parties

Oh that rat from shining force.
Well main character in shining was actually most powerfull character, especially with class upgrade. But the rat... The rat...

 

[Rake]

So, my history with RPGs is that IMO the IE games are among the greatest RPGs ever made. All of them. I just love them. They are not perfect, but I immensely enjoy even IWD 2, or BG1, although they are considered the worse among the IE games. I even enjoyed NWN 1 and 2 more or less.

I always thought, that I like the RTwP mechanic in them, I had fun with the games afterall. Regarding TB games, I never was a huge TB fan. I liked them, but a game being TB didn't do anything for me. There are a few big exceptions: JA2 is one of the greatest game ever, just like Heroes 2-3 (and Disciples 2). Before the kickstarter boom, I haven't played a proper TB game for years (Eador is the exception, it is great). So when Pillars of Eternity was announced, I was happy that it will be a RTwP game.

Now, recently some high profile KS games were released, and I obviously had to play them. Expeditions: Conquistador, Shadowrun, Blackguards, Divinity OS and now Wasteland 2. And I realised, that i love the TB system, where I don't have to pause constantly, and I can take my time. And now as I think back, it striked me, I didn't like the IE games because of RTwP, but because of everything else. The artstyle, the music, the story, the characters, the D&D ruleset, I loved those, the RTwP mechanic was just something I beared with. And it was not that bad, I don't hate it now, but I understand that everything would have been better with Turn based.

I also understand now, that in the IE games, thanks to the D&D ruleset, there wasn't as much need for micromanaging your party, as in PoE. There were a few abilities, some spells which you could only cast once, and that's it. So I didn't need to pause that much, maybe that's why I didn't cared about being RTwP.

But as Dragon Age showed me, and the route PoE is going, if you have MMO like mechanics with cooldowns and lots of abilities which are constantly used, pausing all the time is not that fun. And it provides a lot of problems for the developers themselves (helloooo, Josh). I can deal with it, if other parts of the game are good, but I won't love it ever again.

So, I just like to take back everything, what I said the RTwP being better than TB. And I'm happy that Torment Numenera will be TB.

Nice brofist harvesting. Suck up to the codex hive mind.

Why? I agree with him as far as PoE is concerned, and keep in mind that i'm someone that generaly prefers RTwP from TB.
PoE is a micromanagment hell. No one asked for IE combat to turn to Starcraft 2 or LoL.
RTwP works when the focus is on macro desisions-not micro. I decide how the character is developed (stats/abilities/equipment) and sent him to do his job, which he should be able to do without player input. If i have to fight it for him, controling every hit, the game should be TB. In RTwP my role should be more as a supervisor, sending my party to battle, and then making the tactical decisions for them, like positioning,who attacts who, when to heal, which spell to cast.
The same reason RTwP works on RTS games. It's not about the number of units on that they are disposable. IS because the units can do their job without babysitting, which frees the Player to concantrate in more importand things

I know Josh said that PoE will have options for completely passive non magical characters with talents and whatnot, but until he implements them...
So far i don't see it, and the combat is a clusterfuck.

Though it have imroved a little in the last patch, so i have still hope of it being okeyish in the end.

 

[V_K]

I have little doubt that, for example, NWN2 or Drakensang would be much better games if they were blobbers.

Saying that RPG's with bad combat would have improved combat if they were blobbers isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the blobber genre.

But for a traditional RPG that aims to achieve a balance between combat, exploration, NPC interaction and other stuff, it's a pretty good way to make combat faster while not loosing too much in terms of tactics. A better one than RTwP, that is.

Not much into reading, are we?

 

[Athelas]

Dunno about Drakensang since I never touched it, but NWN2's problem wasn't so much RTwP as it was an awful implementation of RTwP. In general, the post-IE RTwP games suffered from having to adopt a 3rd person action-y camera and perspective for maximum emotional engagement.

 

[JarlFrank]

The problem in NWN and NWN2 is the horribly slow-paced RTwP that might very well be turn based because each action OBVIOUSLY takes a turn of time to complete, which leads to watching guys stand still in front of each other, waiting a few seconds till the next "turn" so they can swing their sword again. Horribly slow paced and boring, TB would be both faster and more interesting than this shit.

 

[FuriousGamer87]

If only Bioware make a ToEE style of TB while retaining the 3d models of NWN/NWN2 engine with a mod editor like NWN ......

Then again, thank god they didn't. I won't be motivated to develop my own TB engine and game if they did.

 

[PhantasmaNL]

Rtwp would be less horrible when you can setup detailed scripts for your characters. Even with all its inexcusable flaws, DA2 has a pretty good system for just that. It accomodates for detailed setups, including and this is crucial, an "when none of the above, standard attack" option. Include an auto pause when certain conditions are met and the player can manage by exception. Much more interesting, all the micro shit is covered by your script. Smart script design, allowing for synergies etc can be a very rewarding and fun part of the game.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Someday someone needs to make a poll on how many RTwP haters stay that way after playing 7.62HC or Brigade E5.

 

[J_C]

Someday someone needs to make a poll on how many RTwP haters stay that way after playing 7.62HC or Brigade E5.

I assume if 7,62 HC were that good of a game, it should have the same fame as JA2. The RtWP system might be great in it, but what about the other parts of the game? Mercenaries, story, music, UI, and I already see that the graphics are awful. Is the terrain destructible? Does it have as many possibilites as JA2?

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Someday someone needs to make a poll on how many RTwP haters stay that way after playing 7.62HC or Brigade E5.

I assume if 7,62 HC were that good of a game, it should have the same fame as JA2. The RtWP system might be great in it, but what about the other parts of the game? Mercenaries, story, music, UI, and I already see that the graphics are awful. Is the terrain destructible? Does it have as many possibilites as JA2?

I can't quite compare JA2 with this, but I do remember terrain not being destructible.
I don't think it got a great deal of publicity, and I find few references to it, even on the 'dex.
mondblut would probably now if the game made any profits at all.
Really, aside from how damn well the RTwP clicked, I don't remember much else of the game.

 

[octavius]

Rtwp would be less horrible when you can setup detailed scripts for your characters. Even with all its inexcusable flaws, DA2 has a pretty good system for just that. It accomodates for detailed setups, including and this is crucial, an "when none of the above, standard attack" option. Include an auto pause when certain conditions are met and the player can manage by exception. Much more interesting, all the micro shit is covered by your script. Smart script design, allowing for synergies etc can be a very rewarding and fun part of the game.

The IE games do have that.
Google MPRILLA and SuperScripts.
According to the nutjob you wouldn't even have to give any orders to your characters with those scripts.

 

[Shaewaroz]

PoEs problem is not RTwP but no exp frm killing enemies. Can't believe I pledged over 100€ for that shit. Never again will I support anything where Sawyer is involved.

 

[polo]

If i had to play the trash battles in BG2 with a TB system i wouldn't like it as much. I think both systems well implemented can be good, and badly implemented can be boring, shit, etc.

 

[Baron Dupek]

762mm.... good to see people remember that game.

All Apeiron games are best example of RTwP, combined with character control and low endurance it make quite intense firefights. Plus enormous arsenal, variety of ammunitions (and you can duct tape magazines for assault rifles). Despite bland story characters and dialogs are really good, not some shitty bland placeholders from average cRPG where all characters talk to you nicely and bad guys are caricatural. They feels like real dialogs. I really liked it.
There is Bob's gang including [Admiral] Jimbob but that's old story that I forgot to ask him.
Man of Prey/Marauder and 762mm are worth to check but Brigade E5 is tough to play, pretty rough and ugly interface.

Pillars of Eternity have some potential with similiarity to 762mm like timing to 0.01sec instead of derpy "dynamic turns" from IE games.

J_C

I assume if 7,62 HC were that good of a game, it should have the same fame as JA2. The RtWP system might be great in it, but what about the other parts of the game?

Mercenaries?

Some stories but they're shallow. I mean - story and mercenaries. You can also hire them via radio. Just like JA2 you pay for them every week/day.

Story?

Same as JA2 - kill bad guy.

Music?

Doesn't exist, only in Bar placed in some cities. I liked it, just play Foobar in background.

UI

- really helpful and detailed, yet you must learn how to use it.

Is the terrain destructible?

No.

Does it have as many possibilites as JA2?

Well, 3D and small studio made some limits but still you can find thing that make you "wow, I can do that?"

 

[RandomAccount]

There's quite a lot which hasn't been mentioned here.

Some HUGE differences between RtwP and TB are:

In almost every Turn-Based game I've played or seen, the enemy AI is invariably instructed to 'attack archers (ranged)' and if you don't fully protect your ranged characters it gets very boring very quickly to have the same issues in each fight - your melee attacking their melee as their melee attacks your archers, or, similarly, have a race to see who can defeat each other's ranged troops the quickest. This is, for example, the single biggest drawback to King's Bounty replayability, to name but one of many.

With RtwP, one of it's big pluses is that the AI is, except in vary specific circumstances, trained to attack whatever arrives first. In this regard the RtwP offers a greater repertoire of player-skills and battle choices as the player can choose who's tanking and who's distracting and, most importantly, make optimum use of glass canons and Rangers.

This is a very important distinction for player happiness. One of the (many many, omg so many) reasons why I loathed DAII was because they give you an archer (a Dwarf archer? WTVF?) and then have it so that he's basically melle'ing in every battle. What's the point? Just give the guy a sword... I don't care if it offers too much cheese potential, I prefer to play my archers as the back-line and my melee as my melee (gosh... I... do... hope... that... makes... sense... dur).

There's no end of small points to make within this one big point above.

Another big issue is that with RtwP you do not feel so imprisoned by your choices. If you decide to charge forward, but then decide to double-back upon seeing what lurks in the darkness, the extent of your commitment depends solely on your finger-click reactions. With TB, unless you want to move every character always one square at a time, you tend to find yourself committing your full Movement Points forward, just because, as humans, we like long movement.

Ergo, the RtwP allows us to 'feel' less micro-managementy, even though, in reality, we are likely performing even more tactical micromanagement than if it was TB.

Some people are saying that it's annoying to keep 'stopping and pausing'. I find the opposite, I often tend to over-pause and even ruin a spell by giving the caster a new instruction out of forgetfulness, but I am not annoyed by this so I don't understand people who are. For me, the continuous pausing encourages me to constantly re-evaluate the battle from it's 'happening now' perspective of knowing exactly who's going toe to toe with who.

 

[J_C]

762mm.... good to see people remember that game.

All Apeiron games are best example of RTwP, combined with character control and low endurance it make quite intense firefights. Plus enormous arsenal, variety of ammunitions (and you can duct tape magazines for assault rifles). Despite bland story characters and dialogs are really good, not some shitty bland placeholders from average cRPG where all characters talk to you nicely and bad guys are caricatural. They feels like real dialogs. I really liked it.
There is Bob's gang including [Admiral] Jimbob but that's old story that I forgot to ask him.
Man of Prey/Marauder and 762mm are worth to check but Brigade E5 is tough to play, pretty rough and ugly interface.

Pillars of Eternity have some potential with similiarity to 762mm like timing to 0.01sec instead of derpy "dynamic turns" from IE games.

J_C

I assume if 7,62 HC were that good of a game, it should have the same fame as JA2. The RtWP system might be great in it, but what about the other parts of the game?

Mercenaries?

Some stories but they're shallow. I mean - story and mercenaries. You can also hire them via radio. Just like JA2 you pay for them every week/day.

Story?

Same as JA2 - kill bad guy.

Music?

Doesn't exist, only in Bar placed in some cities. I liked it, just play Foobar in background.

UI

- really helpful and detailed, yet you must learn how to use it.

Is the terrain destructible?

No.

Does it have as many possibilites as JA2?

Well, 3D and small studio made some limits but still you can find thing that make you "wow, I can do that?"

Cool, I added it to my steam wishlist, I will try it in the future.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Rtwp would be less horrible when you can setup detailed scripts for your characters. Even with all its inexcusable flaws, DA2 has a pretty good system for just that. It accomodates for detailed setups, including and this is crucial, an "when none of the above, standard attack" option. Include an auto pause when certain conditions are met and the player can manage by exception. Much more interesting, all the micro shit is covered by your script. Smart script design, allowing for synergies etc can be a very rewarding and fun part of the game.

The IE games do have that.
Google MPRILLA and SuperScripts.
According to the nutjob you wouldn't even have to give any orders to your characters with those scripts.

Damn, I miss 2003-2004 .

 

[Gozma]

Brigade E5 and 7.62mm have these advantages:

1) They're games that are significantly about realism. Things like seeing real world guns used in semi- realistic tactics are part of the appeal. RTw/P, no question, can do realism better than TB, and better than straight RT because the interface isn't a tiny bottleneck.
2) Ranged combat focused, highly deadly, and movement is about cover/flanking and sightlines and never about stuff like ranks/melee/formations/tanking. This elides many crippling problems in RTw/P, especially heavy pathing.

And even then it's a burdensome clusterfuck a lot of the time that I think is not really suitable for a long ass combat driven game, but at least a pretty interesting one and not created expressly to avoid alienating Diablo players in the mid-'90s.

 

[Frusciante]

Why? I agree with him as far as PoE is concerned, and keep in mind that i'm someone that generaly prefers RTwP from TB.

I took this thread as a general RTWP vs TB thread not limited to the PoE discussion.

As far as PoE I share your concerns about the combat.

 

[Davaris]

There's quite a lot which hasn't been mentioned here.

Some HUGE differences between RtwP and TB are:

In almost every Turn-Based game I've played or seen, the enemy AI is invariably instructed to 'attack archers (ranged)' and if you don't fully protect your ranged characters it gets very boring very quickly to have the same issues in each fight - your melee attacking their melee as their melee attacks your archers, or, similarly, have a race to see who can defeat each other's ranged troops the quickest. This is, for example, the single biggest drawback to King's Bounty replayability, to name but one of many.

With RtwP, one of it's big pluses is that the AI is, except in vary specific circumstances, trained to attack whatever arrives first. In this regard the RtwP offers a greater repertoire of player-skills and battle choices as the player can choose who's tanking and who's distracting and, most importantly, make optimum use of glass canons and Rangers.

This is a very important distinction for player happiness. One of the (many many, omg so many) reasons why I loathed DAII was because they give you an archer (a Dwarf archer? WTVF?) and then have it so that he's basically melle'ing in every battle. What's the point? Just give the guy a sword... I don't care if it offers too much cheese potential, I prefer to play my archers as the back-line and my melee as my melee (gosh... I... do... hope... that... makes... sense... dur).

There's no end of small points to make within this one big point above.

Another big issue is that with RtwP you do not feel so imprisoned by your choices. If you decide to charge forward, but then decide to double-back upon seeing what lurks in the darkness, the extent of your commitment depends solely on your finger-click reactions. With TB, unless you want to move every character always one square at a time, you tend to find yourself committing your full Movement Points forward, just because, as humans, we like long movement.

Ergo, the RtwP allows us to 'feel' less micro-managementy, even though, in reality, we are likely performing even more tactical micromanagement than if it was TB.

Some people are saying that it's annoying to keep 'stopping and pausing'. I find the opposite, I often tend to over-pause and even ruin a spell by giving the caster a new instruction out of forgetfulness, but I am not annoyed by this so I don't understand people who are. For me, the continuous pausing encourages me to constantly re-evaluate the battle from it's 'happening now' perspective of knowing exactly who's going toe to toe with who.

Sounds like the main problems with RTwP games is poor AI and not being able to prevent the enemy, from reaching units you wish to protect. Both issues should be easy to fix.

 

[RandomAccount]

Sounds like the main problems with RTwP games is poor AI and not being able to prevent the enemy, from reaching units you wish to protect. Both issues should be easy to fix.

Either my wording is piss poor or your reading comprehension is. RtwP allows for far greater ability to prevent the enemy AI from reaching units you don't want them to reach - because you can see them coming well in advance...

 

[Davaris]

Sounds like the main problems with RTwP games is poor AI and not being able to prevent the enemy, from reaching units you wish to protect. Both issues should be easy to fix.

Either my wording is piss poor or your reading comprehension is. RtwP allows for far greater ability to prevent the enemy AI from reaching units you don't want them to reach - because you can see them coming well in advance...

My bad eyesight and assumptions.

In almost every Turn-Based game I've played or seen, the enemy AI is invariably instructed to 'attack archers (ranged)' and if you don't fully protect your ranged characters it gets very boring very quickly to have the same issues in each fight - your melee attacking their melee as their melee attacks your archers, or, similarly, have a race to see who can defeat each other's ranged troops the quickest. This is, for example, the single biggest drawback to King's Bounty replayability, to name but one of many.

There is no reason the AI can't be programmed to attack archers in a RTwP game. AI like that, has nothing to do with TB or RTwP.

What I was thinking, its very easy to stop melee attackers from reaching your archers in a tile based game, since you can place warriors on surrounding tiles. In RT games, the attackers tend to worm their way past the defending warriors.

 

[RandomAccount]

There is no reason the AI can't be programmed to attack archers in a RTwP game. AI like that, has nothing to do with TB or RTwP.

What I was thinking, its very easy to stop melee attackers from reaching your archers in a tile based game, since you can place warriors on surrounding tiles. In RT games, the attackers tend to worm their way past the defending warriors.

There is a reason why the AI can't (wouldn't) be programmed to attack archers in RtwP - and that's because the BETA testers would just be complaining that they spend the whole time running around in circles (like what you do when one of your team has 5 HP left and is being chased by an end-boss).

With Turn Based, as you say, theoretically it's a tactical choice - to protect your archers. So 'intelligent' AI can be used. But the irony is that the dumber AI who just attacks the first thing it sees actually makes for a more varied and enjoyable experience, because just protecting your archers every battle is right 'boring'. With RtwP the scenario will differ depending on the opposition, with TB it will (most basic TB games) always be the same.

 

[Davaris]

My suspicion, the reason you don't see AI that always attacks archers in RTwP, is because the programmers didn't or couldn't deal with the worming problem. It ruined the fun so they left it out.

 

[RandomAccount]

Just when you think you know it all... 'Worming Problem'? Wat's that?