Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Information Lords of Xulima, Isometric Turn- and Party-based RPG Announced

Captain Shrek

Guest
Tactical depth is good because it makes a game interesting but I think a good encounter design and proper combat pacing is far more important. You want to be able to be challenged by difficult fights, but not bored by easy ones, and you want opportunities to use these features. I prefer a smaller feature set if it means that those two criteria are met more easily.

I hardly think that pacing or design is really an exclusive feature of the either combat mechanics. Given all things equal I believe TB is superior.

If somebody makes the combat focussed RPG that does EVERYTHING right then shit yes I want to play that. However I think that's infeasible and perhaps even impossible.

I don't think it is impossible, it is just difficult. With eventual experience someone is bound to hit the right combination. Games are just too your to expect perfection of any sort.

I also think strategy is an important element of RPG, the resource management and whatnot. This is perhaps more important to me than individual encounter tactics.

Finally, I want to see mechanical variety and different approaches to gameplay. I don't want everything to be a simulationist tactical combat game.

I really again fail to understand what is so exclusive about these things to one of the mechanics.
 

SkepticsClaw

Potential Fire Hazard
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
169
Grids aren't inherently better than blobs because whilst they offer a greater possibility of tactical depth, this isn't implied simply by there being a grid. In addition! Mechanical complexity geared towards tactical depth is not in my view the most important metric of RPG combat, so arguing for it doesn't necessarily mean you end up with a better game or more enjoyable combat. Finally! I personally don't think everything should be grid combat because I want to see different approaches even if they are less tactical, because I like variety and it makes my dick big

These are my compiled statements. And now I politely fuck off from this thread as this is getting repetitive.
 

I_am_Ian

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
507
Location
The United States of America
Who cares what kind of view point the combat is as long as its good and turn based of course! Even text based combat can be awesome like NEO Scavenger.

Anyway this game's turn based blobber combat turned out to be full of tactics thanks to the myriad of status effects. There are lots of tough decisions to be made in combat and you will find yourself using scrolls, potions and other inventory items to help keep your guys alive and the enemies deader faster. Even the Help an Ally command will come in handy as you will find your players entangled in webs, frozen or burning and these affects are severely detrimental to their performance in combat. Some battles I've found myself in have come down to one surviving character killing the final enemy with his last spell or scroll.

The game is fun, please support it you jerks!
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom