Game News Tyranny Dev Diary #1: The Vision for Tyranny

[Fairfax]

RPGCodex Top 10 CRPGs:

• 2 RTwP
• 4 Action-based
• 3 Turn-based

+Arcanum (RTwP or TB)

Top 30 (including the optional systems):

• 12 Action-based
• 9 RTwP
• 12 Turn-based

40% Turn-based

 

[MRY]

A wise designer includes a Persian flaw. In fact, I've set out to make sure that TTON is chock full of them. :D

 

[Excidium II]

RPGCodex Top 10 CRPGs:

• 2 RTwP
• 4 Action-based
• 3 Turn-based

+Arcanum (RTwP or TB)

Top 30 (including the optional systems):

• 12 Action-based
• 9 RTwP
• 12 Turn-based

40% Turn-based

lmao are you trying to make a point or something?

Those games are favourites despite RTWP, not because of it.

 

[AwesomeButton]

My overall impression from interviews has been that PoE was the "hardcore RPG" from Obsidian and Tyranny will be the "light" RPG, directed towards broader audiences.


1. Don't forget they have Paradox to please.
2. don't forget that it's not Sawyer in the lead.
This is the only hard info we have right now.

 

[Bubbles]

Nobody plays PST or Bloodlines for their combat, so you may freely remove them from your statistic.

And the amount of Codexers who play Arcanum in RTwP is probably in the low single digits.

 

[Zeriel]

My overall impression from interviews has been that PoE was the "hardcore RPG" from Obsidian and Tyranny will be the "light" RPG, directed towards broader audiences.


1. Don't forget they have Paradox to please.
2. don't forget that it's not Sawyer in the lead.
This is the only hard info we have right now.

According to the law of ironic game design, the game that was not meant to be hardcore will end up being more satisfying for us grogs than Sawyer's funfest.

 

[J_C]

Anyway, cautiously optimistic.

Get hyped:

So finally he gets to be the Creative Lead on a game and he leaves the company. FFS Chris!

 

[Fairfax]

RPGCodex Top 10 CRPGs:

• 2 RTwP
• 4 Action-based
• 3 Turn-based

+Arcanum (RTwP or TB)

Top 30 (including the optional systems):

• 12 Action-based
• 9 RTwP
• 12 Turn-based

40% Turn-based

lmao are you trying to make a point or something?

Those games are favourites despite RTWP, not because of it.

Fair enough, but If TB is so inherently superior, why aren't more of them in the top 30?
And if RTwP was inherently "very bad", surely it would've ruined some of the combat-heavy games that made it to the list?

I don't doubt the vast majority of the Codex prefers turn-based combat. However, I'd be interested in a properly formulated explanation as to why RTwP is inherently shit, as is often said here.

My overall impression from interviews has been that PoE was the "hardcore RPG" from Obsidian and Tyranny will be the "light" RPG, directed towards broader audiences.


1. Don't forget they have Paradox to please.
2. don't forget that it's not Sawyer in the lead.
This is the only hard info we have right now.

According to the law of ironic game design, the game that was not meant to be hardcore will end up being more satisfying for us grogs than Sawyer's funfest.

They're being upfront about its design right off the bat. Big difference compared to PoE.

 

[AwesomeButton]

RPGCodex Top 10 CRPGs:

• 2 RTwP
• 4 Action-based
• 3 Turn-based

+Arcanum (RTwP or TB)

Top 30 (including the optional systems):

• 12 Action-based
• 9 RTwP
• 12 Turn-based

40% Turn-based

lmao are you trying to make a point or something?

Those games are favourites despite RTWP, not because of it.

Fair enough, but If TB is so inherently superior, why aren't more of them in the top 30?
And if RTwP was inherently "very bad", surely it would've ruined some of the combat-heavy games that made it to the list?

I don't doubt the vast majority of the Codex prefers turn-based combat. However, I'd be interested in a properly formulated explanation as to why RTwP is inherently shit, as is often said here.

My overall impression from interviews has been that PoE was the "hardcore RPG" from Obsidian and Tyranny will be the "light" RPG, directed towards broader audiences.


1. Don't forget they have Paradox to please.
2. don't forget that it's not Sawyer in the lead.
This is the only hard info we have right now.

According to the law of ironic game design, the game that was not meant to be hardcore will end up being more satisfying for us grogs than Sawyer's funfest.

They're being upfront about its design right off the bat. Big difference compared to PoE.

Yes, they are being upfront that they are "reaching out to a broader audience". The word "streamlining" was also used. The rest is wishful thinking, for now. You know what it means when a developer not only doesn't deny but confirms those two things.

 

[Excidium II]

Fair enough, but If TB is so inherently superior, why aren't more of them in the top 30?

Because the structure of combat resolution is just one aspect of RPGs.

And if RTwP was inherently "very bad", surely it would've ruined some of the combat-heavy games that made it to the list?

Those games simply manage to compensate through good systems and encounter design. Or have combat so shitty it doesn't really matter how it's resolved.

Also didn't we already go through why RTWP sucks? It's purely a compromise to make games more marketable by making combat orders require less thinking from the player.

Turn-based is more restrictive and frustrating, the player has to commit a lot more with every action. It's harder to fix mistakes before enemies get the opportunity to exploit them, and reacting to enemy actions requires planning ahead of time. Getting a combat strategy done requires a lot more adaptation, specially regarding positioning because taking turns makes it easier to counter long-term strategies.

Turn-based combat is also a whole damn lot easier to implement from a technical perspective.

 

[Kaivokz]

I forgot that switching Arcanum's combat from RTwP to turn-based transforms it into a tactical masterpiece; it requires deeper planning, adaptive thinking, and careful positioning...

The argument from adaptive thinking could be turned around: RTwP allows the player to adapt their tactics more quickly if something is going wrong, and so encounters need to be designed even better to combat this. Thus, if you put yourself into a shit position in a turn-based game, it might be more apparent that you're using adaptive thinking at that moment but that hardly means deeper adaptive thinking is an inherent advantage of TB systems over RTwP systems.

The amount of planning required depends much more on the ruleset and encounter design than the combat system; IWD2 certainly requires more of a plan (and even more strategy, given character development) than a whole slew of japanese turn based RPGs or even some recent games like Blackguards or Wasteland 2.

As far as careful positioning, I'll give you that one when it comes to the traditional IE games, but traditional IE system =/= all and every possible RTwP system. I'm likely one of the few here who enjoyed the engagement mechanics in PoE as an attempt to address this point... especially after the AI update which makes certain enemies (mostly humans) very willing to break engagement and attack your back line, and the update which allows for individual stealth.

TB is easier to implement well from both a technical and design perspective, for sure.

 

[Excidium II]

I forgot that switching Arcanum's combat from RTwP to turn-based transforms it into a tactical masterpiece; it requires deeper planning, adaptive thinking, and careful positioning..

What you forgot was to read the first lines of my post. Arcanum combat is shit either way.

 

[Kaivokz]

I forgot that switching Arcanum's combat from RTwP to turn-based transforms it into a tactical masterpiece; it requires deeper planning, adaptive thinking, and careful positioning..

What you forgot was to read the first lines of my post. Arcanum combat is shit either way.

I know you weren't saying Arcanum was a tactical masterpiece. I was being facetious. My point was: the qualities you cited are no more inherent in TB than RTwP, nor do I have good reason to think there is a higher upper limit on the amount of planning and adaptive thinking possible/required in TB systems.

 

[Excidium II]

That's because you are p. dense. To even make an argument for RTWP you have to bring elements extraneous from the structure of combat resolution. It only makes a stronger case for TB that RTWP needs stronger encounter design, systems and AI to hold up.

 

[MrMarbles]

With Tyranny we wanted to create a more nuanced evil.

I will be the dissenting voice and say that this is a step in the wrong direction. When the premise of the story is that you are fighting against evil, then making evil "more nuanced" enriches the story. When the premise of the story is that you are fighting for evil, then making evil "more nuanced" dilutes the story. "It turns out the bad guys just had their own unique belief system and were tired of being systematically slaughtered by the good guys. Was the evil overlord overzealous? Perhaps -- revolutionary leaders are wont to be. But don't forget that the good guys were themselves religious bigots and cultural imperialists -- in the end, they had to be cast down, even if the means here were perhaps a little extreme. But you can temper that by being the moderate and ushering in a golden post-revolutionary era!" Oops, it turns out that playing as the bad guy is just playing as the deconstructionist good guy. :/

Fair point, but it's only one way of interpreting what he said.

You are seeing "nuanced evil" as "morally nuanced evil". I read it as "instrumentally nuanced evil", as in you get to play the overt psycho as well as the scheming mastermind. The end goal may be the same, but the methods vary. I think of it as the difference between Frank Horrigan vs. Paetyr Baelish, or even the Tana'ari vs. the Baatezu. To me it sounds like

 

[Kaivokz]

That's because you are p. dense. To even make an argument for RTWP you have to bring elements extraneous from the structure of combat resolution. It only makes a stronger case for TB that RTWP needs stronger encounter design, systems and AI to hold up.

No, it makes the case that TB is easier for devs to implement and can more easily stand alone with other shitty elements. If Michael Angelo sculpts a perfect base for a bust, and then gives the chisel to his retarded cousin Bichael, the result is not going to be a cohesive whole no matter how good the base is. Which is not to say that RTwP is a perfect system surrounded by shit, but that requiring the whole to be cohesive and fluid for it to work is only an argument against RTwP if you're incapable of forming a cohesive and fluid whole. Which, to be fair, is accurate of many dev teams.

 

[an Administrator]

RTwP is only good for not-party-based RPGs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Fair enough, but If TB is so inherently superior, why aren't more of them in the top 30?

It's like asking if PST is so good, why aren't there more games like it?

I don't doubt the vast majority of the Codex prefers turn-based combat. However, I'd be interested in a properly formulated explanation as to why RTwP is inherently shit, as is often said here.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...t-eternity-how-does-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/

 

[Infinitron]

I feel that the main advantage of turn-based is a potential one, namely, the potential for better strategic enemy AI. (I don't think many turn-based RPGs have actually taken advantage of this potential.)

I'm not impressed by the "born in sin" argument against RTwP, where the (alleged) fact that it was developed as a "compromise between action and turn-based" is held up as inherently damning. That's not an intellectually persuasive argument. Many things are born out of compromise. Doom is the evolution of a compromised Ultima Underworld.

As hardcore gamers we're experienced with a wide variety of interfaces and mechanics and it's silly to abhor this one in particular. IMO the crucial thing is which system allows for more emergent complexity. But that's something that's difficult to analyze; much easier to revert to subjective arguments about muh feelz.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not a compromise, the pause is nothing but a work-around. Imagine playing Pillars without being able to pause the game just to see what the fuck is going on and issuing some orders. Basically, first you make this chaotic mess, then shove in pause and pat yourself on the back. Pillars would have been a much better game had it been turn-based.

 

[Infinitron]

Unless the game you're playing is really a mess management simulator and the pause is the tool that you're given.

 

[ArchAngel]

Somebody should ask MCA if the "companion combos" were his idea/inspired by Chrono Trigger.

Better to ask him if what he did during being a Creative lead suffered Durance/Mother fate or even PoE novella fate after he left Obsidian.

 

[Cosmo]

Basically, first you make this chaotic mess, then shove in pause and pat yourself on the back.

Exactly what happened, it's true. Nonetheless i agree with Infinitron.
I had great hopes for PoE, based on Sawyer's opinions on RTwP and the engagement mechanic : i thought they'd manage to focus on the very basics of combat roles and AI to create something dynamic but also clear and compelling, and instead they went the IE route and its mess of abilities and chaotic movement. If anything PoE needs a great culling and a big redefinition of the very base of RTwP. Will it happen ? Gee, i don't think so.
But the fact it's never been done doen't mean it's not doable.

 

[Tigranes]

As someone who likes both systems and doesn't find "RTwP inherently shit" argument persuasive, I have to say Infinitron is like some sort of broken Socrates. ELIZA, is that you?

 

[AwesomeButton]

Pillars is "pause with real time", not "real time with pause" for the same reason for which plays nothing like the IE games - lack of personal initiative round and "click this button to perform magic" design of combat.