Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Gozma]

I am already annoyed watching the previews from the Infinity Engine thing where you click on the edge of the screen to move there, then scroll to the place you clicked, then click at the edge of the screen again, then scroll there, then click at the edge of the scren again, then scroll there, then three hundred hours later the game ends

 

[tuluse]

I disagree.
In most situations - many people would love to pause.
Whether it's to react to an attack or being a victim of AoE spells. Or even take a moment and take stock of the situation.
It's just that part the MOBA/RTS's challenge to the gamer is reacting to these situations WITHOUT pause.
So when RPGs are built around the basis of 'RTwP', the whole encounter is designed with taking account of the 'pause' component in mind.

Just think about it, in what situation do you not need to pause in most RTWP RPGs?
Trash, unchallenging mobs. Everything is OK. Nothing dangerous is happening. All according to plan.

In most RTS games individual units are expendable, so you can lose someone without it being a big deal. Also, most of them don't have have special abilities. It's just move and attack.

In MOBAs you only control one character.

The comparison is dumb because you need to pause in a real time RPG because each character is valuable and complex, and there are 6 of them.

 

[Sensuki]

I am already annoyed watching the previews from the Infinity Engine thing where you click on the edge of the screen to move there, then scroll to the place you clicked, then click at the edge of the screen again, then scroll there, then click at the edge of the scren again, then scroll there, then three hundred hours later the game ends

This is basically every free camera top down style game ever. That's my favourite style of camera movement too.

The comparison is dumb because you need to pause in a real time RPG because each character is valuable and complex, and there are 6 of them.

I think it would be fun to play a pure real-time (that has a pause where you can't do anything) RPG with multiple units and a good system built around it. I'm not sure many people here would enjoy that though.

 

[AN4RCHID]

Having optional wasd movement for exploration would go a long way toward making these games less obnoxious.

 

[nikolokolus]

Having optional wasd movement for exploration would go a long way toward making these games less obnoxious.

It's certainly become second nature to me. As long as they allow keymapping then it shouldn't matter, assuming they follow the same amount of control that the old IE games allowed, where you could pan the camera with the arrow keys.

 

[Sensuki]

IE games also had keyboard scrolling. PE should too.

 

[AN4RCHID]

I used wasd for camera control in the IE games, but I mean they should have an option for actual character movement using keyboard. It wouldn't work for combat obviously, but it would make exploration less of a headache.

 

[Infinitron]

Julian Gollop summed up this whole topic nicely in a double interview alongside the lead developer of NuXCOM. Paraphrasing: in any real-time strategy game you invariably find yourself fighting against the interface in addition to the game proper. Turn-based is monocle not because it's more deeperer, but because it abstracts time so that what matters is how well you make decisions, rather than how well you can push buttons to input the decisions you've already made.

RTwP does the same exact thing in a jerky, awkward, inelegant manner, which makes it generally inferior

edit: I think the only exception would be grand strategy games, where you sometimes need to control things on a minute-by-minute basis and other times spend five months waiting for the lord of the castle you're besieging to die of the plague

Inferior in control, perhaps. On the other hand, the disadvantage of turn-based is...that it's turn-based. The abstraction isn't perfect - certain gameplay situations are inevitably lost in the translation, as the combat scenario is crudely serialized into often predictable chunks.

In general, when debating real-time vs turn-based, people on this forum need to stop focusing on side issues like "ease of control" or "speed" or "how actiony it is" and start thinking about, you know, the actual meanings of turn-based and real-time.

I am already annoyed watching the previews from the Infinity Engine thing where you click on the edge of the screen to move there, then scroll to the place you clicked, then click at the edge of the screen again, then scroll there, then click at the edge of the scren again, then scroll there, then three hundred hours later the game ends

You need a new hobby.

And Lilura needs to go back to lurking

 

[Gozma]

I think it stood out to me because the fog of war clear range is so short that it means you have to do a ton of "inch forward to clear enough fog to pick a new spot to walk to" click drag clicks. I dunno if it's just how it is in dark conditions or something though. Didn't they say at one point they were gonna do "roguelike" fog of war, which I assumed meant like real line of sight? Thinking about it seems kind of impossible to do with the level geometry being artistic rather than really modeled.

Did the IE games have a hotkey'd mode where you could center pin the camera to one character like Diablo? If there's nothing technical to stop it I think that would be a really nice thing to add.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Inferior in control, perhaps. On the other hand, the disadvantage of turn-based is...that it's turn-based. The abstraction isn't perfect - certain gameplay situations are inevitably lost in the translation, as the combat scenario is crudely serialized into often predictable chunks.

In general, when debating real-time vs turn-based, people on this forum need to stop focusing on side issues like "ease of control" or "speed" or "how actiony it is" and start thinking about, you know, the actual meanings of turn-based and real-time.

What in the god fuck...

 

[SCO]

I used wasd for camera control in the IE games, but I mean they should have an option for actual character movement using keyboard. It wouldn't work for combat obviously, but it would make exploration less of a headache.

What you actually want is camera centered on player and leader movement using keys option. That way you can use both the mouse and keyboard for centered camera movement.

Or maybe you'd prefer waiting for the edges to recenter, some do.

 

[Lilura]

And Lilura needs to go back to lurking

Gee, thanks. A moderator basically saying I shouldn't post anymore. You're a real charmer, Infinitron (I know your "wit" will respond with "thanks!").

 

[Mangoose]

So when RPGs are built around the basis of 'RTwP', the whole encounter is designed with taking account of the 'pause' component in mind.

Just think about it, in what situation do you not need to pause in most RTWP RPGs?
Trash, unchallenging mobs. Everything is OK. Nothing dangerous is happening. All according to plan.

In most RTS games individual units are expendable, so you can lose someone without it being a big deal. Also, most of them don't have have special abilities. It's just move and attack.

In MOBAs you only control one character.

The comparison is dumb because you need to pause in a real time RPG because each character is valuable and complex, and there are 6 of them.

That's why I said emulate and minimize pausing, not simulate and completely get rid of pausing. The comparison isn't dumb, taking the comparison to the literal extreme is.

The point is to consciously minimize pausing in terms of designing your RTWP system, not ignore that aspect, nor to get rid of pausing altogether.

Edit: The point of the comparison was not MAKE EVERYTHING LITERALLY LIKE AN RTS, but to take a few lessons from them; in my own words, "having an efficient UI and giving the players a balance of active options to keep them on their toes without being overloaded."

 

[RK47]

Inferior in control, perhaps. On the other hand, the disadvantage of turn-based is...that it's turn-based. The abstraction isn't perfect - certain gameplay situations are inevitably lost in the translation, as the combat scenario is crudely serialized into often predictable chunks.

In general, when debating real-time vs turn-based, people on this forum need to stop focusing on side issues like "ease of control" or "speed" or "how actiony it is" and start thinking about, you know, the actual meanings of turn-based and real-time.

What in the god fuck...

This is why VATS 2.0 by Beth is the best thing ever.

 

[Sensuki]

What you actually want is camera centered on player and leader movement using keys option. That way you can use both the mouse and keyboard for centered camera movement.

Or maybe you'd prefer waiting for the edges to recenter, some do.

I hate this style of control with a passion. However, it does work for KotC/Dark Sun.

 

[Athelas]

Julian Gollop summed up this whole topic nicely in a double interview alongside the lead developer of NuXCOM. Paraphrasing: in any real-time strategy game you invariably find yourself fighting against the interface in addition to the game proper. Turn-based is monocle not because it's more deeperer, but because it abstracts time so that what matters is how well you make decisions, rather than how well you can push buttons to input the decisions you've already made.

RTwP does the same exact thing in a jerky, awkward, inelegant manner, which makes it generally inferior

That's not really an accurate statement at all. RTwP doesn't do 'the same exact thing': it's jerky, awkward and inelegant precisely because it does something drastically different from turn-based games: simultaneous action. Now whether that's something you value or not, is another question of course.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Inferior in control, perhaps. On the other hand, the disadvantage of turn-based is...that it's turn-based. The abstraction isn't perfect - certain gameplay situations are inevitably lost in the translation, as the combat scenario is crudely serialized into often predictable chunks.

In general, when debating real-time vs turn-based, people on this forum need to stop focusing on side issues like "ease of control" or "speed" or "how actiony it is" and start thinking about, you know, the actual meanings of turn-based and real-time.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Just meditate over the true meanings of turn-based and real-time and everything will become clear.

 

[DefJam101]

And Lilura needs to go back to lurking

Gee, thanks. A moderator basically saying I shouldn't post anymore. You're a real charmer, Infinitron (I know your "wit" will respond with "thanks!").

Welcome to RPGCodex.

 

[DefJam101]

Julian Gollop summed up this whole topic nicely in a double interview alongside the lead developer of NuXCOM. Paraphrasing: in any real-time strategy game you invariably find yourself fighting against the interface in addition to the game proper. Turn-based is monocle not because it's more deeperer, but because it abstracts time so that what matters is how well you make decisions, rather than how well you can push buttons to input the decisions you've already made.

RTwP does the same exact thing in a jerky, awkward, inelegant manner, which makes it generally inferior

That's not really an accurate statement at all. RTwP doesn't do 'the same exact thing':

I'm sorry but RTwP does, indeed, abstract time, which is what I said. Maybe you're a better man than most but no matter how hard I concentrate I've never been able to stop time and consider my next move while being charged by a pack of wolves

it's jerky, awkward and inelegant precisely because it does something drastically different from turn-based games: simultaneous action.

You can do this in a turn-based system with a well-designed interrupt mechanic. It's not a perfect solution, but neither is pausing the game every four milliseconds

 

[Athelas]

Julian Gollop summed up this whole topic nicely in a double interview alongside the lead developer of NuXCOM. Paraphrasing: in any real-time strategy game you invariably find yourself fighting against the interface in addition to the game proper. Turn-based is monocle not because it's more deeperer, but because it abstracts time so that what matters is how well you make decisions, rather than how well you can push buttons to input the decisions you've already made.

RTwP does the same exact thing in a jerky, awkward, inelegant manner, which makes it generally inferior

That's not really an accurate statement at all. RTwP doesn't do 'the same exact thing':

I'm sorry but RTwP does, indeed, abstract time, which is what I said. Maybe you're a better man than most but no matter how hard I concentrate I've never been able to stop time and consider my next move while being charged by a pack of wolves

That's not abstraction of time, that's abstraction of input (being able to issue orders to all partymembers without time elapsing). 'Pure' RTwP most certainly doesn't have abstraction of time (or at least, very little of it), since both the player and enemy act simultaneously. The enemy A.I. obviously doesn't have a pause option, but it doesn't need to, since it's a goddamn computer that can 'decide' what to do instantly.

Are you seriously going to argue that firing a fireball in RTwP is the same as firing a fireball in turn-based, when in the case of the former both enemies and partymembers can move in and out of the AoE while you're casting? Do you not see how that would drastically affect combat?

You can do this in a turn-based system with a well-designed interrupt mechanic. It's not a perfect solution, but neither is pausing the game every four milliseconds

I was talking about entire battles taking place in real-time and all of the mechanics relying on simultaneous actions, not a situational element such as an interrupt system. Actually, no, interrupts aren't really 'simultaneous actions', they're an abstraction of it, just like an action point system governing how much you can do during your turn. Which is fine, real-time doesn't automatically mean better. You seem to have inferred that from my post for some reason when I was just stating the obvious difference between the two.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

You can do this in a turn-based system with a well-designed interrupt mechanic. It's not a perfect solution, but neither is pausing the game every four milliseconds

You do realize not all of us play IE games this way?

 

[Zombra]

Speaking of keeping every character busy all the time, do we know anything about PC automation? I assume there will be AI script "personalities" as we saw in the IE games. You remember: Aggressive Wizard, Cautious Fighter, stuff like this. I also appreciated setting up conditional actions for each character in DA:O. Honestly I enjoy seeing my characters fight the way I want them to without my having to touch the UI at all (and it's also OK if they surprise me sometimes).

I asked about this on the official forums and so far 34 views and no replies. I don't remember hearing about automation in any previews so far. Anyone have any idea?

 

[Infinitron]

Speaking of keeping every character busy all the time, do we know anything about PC automation? I assume there will be AI script "personalities" as we saw in the IE games. You remember: Aggressive Wizard, Cautious Fighter, stuff like this. I also appreciated setting up conditional actions for each character in DA:O. Honestly I enjoy seeing my characters fight the way I want them to without my having to touch the UI at all (and it's also OK if they surprise me sometimes).

I asked about this on the official forums and so far 34 views and no replies. I don't remember hearing about automation in any previews so far. Anyone have any idea?

My guess is that Sawyer is the type of person who would say that "if you feel the need to automate combat, it means the designer did something wrong". We don't know anything about this.

 

[Zombra]

Yeah. Even in that little demo there was a LOT of the guy drag-selecting his 2-3 characters and telling them to all attack the nearest target. Seems like that could be automated so very easily ... but then the player wouldn't have as much clicking to do.