How much demand is there for first person RPGs with turn-based isometric combat?

[Tyranicon]

Just curious, since there are a few RPGs currently in development with this premise, such as Archaelund and Saregnar.

I can see the attraction for devs, as it would make numerous elements of first person combat easier to develop and balance.

What's the attraction for players though? Is it a desire to have more cerebral turn-based combat? To have parties without the clusterfuck of first person combat? Because it combines the immersion of first person exploration with a more sophisticated combat system?

Would you like to see more of these games?

 

[lukaszek]

i very much dislike when game changes perspective/controls/interactions.

Why not develop 2 games at this point?

To have parties without the clusterfuck of first person combat?

but then i no longer like parties either

 

[AdolfSatan]

It's the best of both worlds.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

pool of radiance with hentai girls?

 

[Mortmal]

Just curious, since there are a few RPGs currently in development with this premise, such as Archaelund and Saregnar.

I can see the attraction for devs, as it would make numerous elements of first person combat easier to develop and balance.

What's the attraction for players though? Is it a desire to have more cerebral turn-based combat? To have parties without the clusterfuck of first person combat? Because it combines the immersion of first person exploration with a more sophisticated combat system?

Would you like to see more of these games?

Dude, you got it wrong. There's very little demand for that alone. First and foremost, it's all about storytelling. If you want the Codex crowd, for example, go for some grimdark setting—Warhammer 40k, Fallout, anything, whatever, but grimdark and adult, with bastard choices, with a story that flatters the ego or provides a good power trip. The turn-based aspect is good to have, but it comes well after that. As long as it's tactically sound enough and does the job, there's no point in having a headache about it; people will forgive everything, even if you go first person shooter instead, aka deus ex. If you don't want the Codex but want a bigger customer base, go for a setting like the Forgotten Realms, exactly like Larian did. The combat system is a minor thing, good to have, but not the priority at all. Think setting and writing above all. The best settings are still those from the 80s and 90s—quite a sad state of affairs...

 

[Butter]

My preference is for Wizardry combat that never breaks the perspective, but there are a lot of great games that break perspective to get the best of both worlds, e.g. the Gold Box games, some of the Ultima games, The Dark Heart of Uukrul, Betrayal at Krondor. Exploration is better in first-person, but combat is better when it can account for movement, AoO, line of sight, etc.

 

[Just Locus]

First-person RPGs with Isometric, turn-based combat sounds like a very niche mishmash of subgenres to me. I suppose I'd like to see some experimentation with that sorta idea as it sounds interesting.

 

[octavius]

First person is good for exploring if you play a single character. For a party based game, though, I don't think much is gained by the FPP and TB isometric combat combo. The Gold Box games would have not lost any of its appeal with an overhead view while exploring.

 

[Cryomancer]

I would prefer pure fp or pure isometric and dont like switching

 

[Glop_dweller]

The Gold Box games would have not lost any of its appeal with an overhead view while exploring.

So... Hillsfar?

Somehow I do not think so.

 

[Ysaye]

BG3 may have (slightly) increased the general public's interest in isometric turn based games, but IMO there is little interest by said audience in the specific medium.

For the Codexers, there is an interest in some quarters because it follows on the traditions of the Gold Box, Krondor and Realms of Arkania games which were quality strategy RPGs.

Additionally, I am sure many of us (as players) believe the best visual perspective for exploring a world / dungeon crawling is first person, whilst the best perspective for a quality combat that incorporates spatial elements is isometric. The downside from a player perspective with isometric combat is that it can become slow and tedious if there are lots of trash-battles, and some of us are old enough to be counting each second before we die / have to go back to work, so we place a higher value on time.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

BG3 made isometric stuff fresh by adding modern touches, the thing is that most crpgs of the "new golden era" are made by burn out guys who want to cope with their mid life crisis and they just make banal copies of the games they used to do. You gotta bring something new in there.

 

[octavius]

The Gold Box games would have not lost any of its appeal with an overhead view while exploring.

So... Hillsfar?

Somehow I do not think so.

You can say that again.

 

[luj1]

one of the most awful combinations imo

 

[Viata]

I already find we lack first person RPGs. They are the best.

 

[Glop_dweller]

The Gold Box games would have not lost any of its appeal with an overhead view while exploring.

So... Hillsfar?

Somehow I do not think so.

You can say that again.

Yeah... except that Hillsfar is Iso/top-down when exploring the dungeons; hence the example. (...of what the GB titles could have looked like without the FPP exploration.)

 

[scytheavatar]

I feel that the Wizardry 8 gameplay is underrated and it is a shame we didn't get more games like it. But as for switching the view to isometric...... that would simply make it an isometric game with first person exploring. Hardly some great innovation from third person exploring.

 

[luj1]

the "demand" for this combination doesnt matter tho

if you believe in your vision just make it

I would play it regardless, assuming it has quality

tons of cult RPGs are RTwP or have bad design decisions but are still timeless

 

[Forest Dweller]

How much demand is there for first person RPGs with turn-based isometric combat?​

Hopefully zero.

 

[Stasgard]

I can only feel this particular choice only detracts from a game by trying to do two contradictory thing. If one desires immersive exploration that first-person provides the switch into isometric for combat is wildly jarring and going rip you right out of that experience. If you're in it for the tactical combat element, the forced first-person reduces your control of party positioning prior to combat beginning, I can't be flanking the enemy before turn one of combat for an obvious example.

Doesn't even seem like it would be particularly great for developers, you're splitting your design focus and spinning plates rather than just making one good thing.

 

[Tyranicon]

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

i very much dislike when game changes perspective/controls/interactions.

Why not develop 2 games at this point?

To have parties without the clusterfuck of first person combat?

but then i no longer like parties either

 

[GentlemanCthulhu]

It's a fairly stupid combination.

 

[santino27]

I loathe Wizardry style first person combat (or really any non FPS first person combat), so yeah... if you're doing 1st person pov exploration, I'd rather switch to TB isometric for combat a la the Goldbox games. I'd prefer full isometric, in general though.

 

[Darkwind]

I already find we lack first person RPGs. They are the best.

There are about 6 versions out there of this first person RPG alone.