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

[Lord_Potato]

It's the best of both worlds.

Reminds me of Lords of Xulima which is the worst of both worlds: isometric exploration and 1st person party combat

 

[mondblut]

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.

You just invented Realms of Arcania. And that's if you explicitly insist on isometry.

 

[La vie sexuelle]

If Atlus creates an additional game for fans as a tactical RPG, it must see economic potential in it (at one time, racing and fighting games were such additional games).

 

[Tweed]

So like, Realms of Arkania?

 

[just]

just be yourself

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Be like Mike
Just do it!

 

[Viata]

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.

Yeah, six version of the same game, so 1 game. It also sucks and I have no interest in this shit.

 

[behold_a_man]

Would you like to see more of these games?

I would like to see more good games.

If a game is good, there will probably be a demand for it, even if it employs a second-person perspective with real-cringe oblique combat.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Archaelund is one of the few games I eagerly anticipate. Betrayal at Krondor is one of my all time favorite games. That game would have been far less interesting or engaging if it had basic boring blobber combat. While I dislike being unable to separate my party to tactically initiate battle, it's a sacrifice I can tolerate if the exploration is really good. BaK did allow you to inspect enemies before you began, and used your parties stealth stats for initiative. I think it worked well enough. The biggest influence was how it handled traps, as those became an explicit encounter on a battle map. It was a bit gamey, but could make some ambush fights more interesting.

 

[Jaesun]

We will have to wait and see what the reaction to Archaelund is when it goes to alpha/beta. Codex wise, I think in general there will be a lot of people that like a FP exploration and then a switch to turn-based combat. It's something I've been waiting for someone to pull off since 2004...

 

[std::namespace]

What's the attraction for players though?

none
"""people""" who play fps games want to larp
they dont want tactical combat
there is no reason to do combat in any other perspective than larper cuck view

 

[Abu Antar]

Personal demand for me? Yes. Why? I have liked games that use this formula. Archaelund will be bought when it releases on Steam EA. Call of Saregnar is also very likely a day one purchase.

Do I think that there is general demand for this type of game? Not at all. Financially, this seems like a very risky move. I never hear/read anything about these types of games.

 

[luj1]

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.

good point

this "discontinuity of experience" btw is why every Owlcat game sucks balls after chapter 2

 

[Abu Antar]

The good games that use FP exploration with iso TB combat didn't feel strange to me, and I don't think that games like Archaelund and Co. will be any different. People are way too sensitive.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Iso exploration and FPP TB combat?

FPP exploration and Mortal Kombat (which is close to moebius but it was 2D top down exploration)

Oh! FPP exploration but combat becomes a multiplayer RT metroidvania on random combat uh… field? Screen?

Or any exploration but combat is resolved by random casino game?

Do rock/paper/scissors like that sega master system game?

Combat is done in turn-based wing commander combat.

Exploration is through you issuing commands and watching them walk over and doing actions like an adventure game. Combat is high score in random arcade game. The higher the victor’s score over the opponent = a certain amount of damage per point score reference card.

Combat is fixing a ledger.

Exploration is random balloon ride any perspective (no control)

 

[Butter]

Iso exploration and FPP TB combat?

FPP exploration and Mortal Kombat (which is close to moebius but it was 2D top down exploration)

Oh! FPP exploration but combat becomes a multiplayer RT metroidvania on random combat uh… field? Screen?

Or any exploration but combat is resolved by random casino game?

Do rock/paper/scissors like that sega master system game?

Combat is done in turn-based wing commander combat.

Exploration is through you issuing commands and watching them walk over and doing actions like an adventure game. Combat is high score in random arcade game. The higher the victor’s score over the opponent = a certain amount of damage per point score reference card.

Combat is fixing a ledger.

Exploration is random balloon ride any perspective (no control)

What the fuck did Avellone put in your drink?

 

[Serus]

It's the best of both worlds.

Reminds me of Lords of Xulima which is the worst of both worlds: isometric exploration and 1st person party combat

Neither is "worst", all can work in certain types of games. As to the combination, I for once am am happy when someone tries something different or new or very rarely tried. LoX was a solid game. However if you want to mix two different perspectives, there should be a good reason and there isn't one in what LoX did. Still, nice experiment.
And yes, i saw the .

Iso exploration and FPP TB combat?

FPP exploration and Mortal Kombat (which is close to moebius but it was 2D top down exploration)

Oh! FPP exploration but combat becomes a multiplayer RT metroidvania on random combat uh… field? Screen?

Or any exploration but combat is resolved by random casino game?

Do rock/paper/scissors like that sega master system game?

Combat is done in turn-based wing commander combat.

Exploration is through you issuing commands and watching them walk over and doing actions like an adventure game. Combat is high score in random arcade game. The higher the victor’s score over the opponent = a certain amount of damage per point score reference card.

Combat is fixing a ledger.

Exploration is random balloon ride any perspective (no control)

I'd love to see those made. Once for most of them.

 

[DavidBVal]

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

Solid comment.

My own experience says making an RPG game is a multi-year full time effort, and very expensive too. There'll be very hard times through those years. So if you try to make other people happy, you'll eventually get sick of it and give up. Make something YOU are happy with, first and foremost. First person, real-time, turn-based, phase-based. Whatever, as long as it makes *you* excited. Fuck demand.

There's millions of gamers out there. If you put a serious effort and get to the end, even if you make a weird small-niche game, you'll make it worth it financially. And you'll have made something different. Surely flawed in this or that, but it will be your idea, something nobody else would have done.

 

[luj1]

So if you try to make other people happy, you'll eventually get sick of it and give up.

 

[laclongquan]

That was awful combo "first person RPGs" with "turn-based isometric combat"
First person RPGs require fluid movement, and 1st person view
Turn-based isometric combat mean jerky not fluid movement, since it would stop with turns. And with turn based, you would need some overview of situation or it would be torture to play. So you would need either a change to 3rd person over shoulder view, or an automap so people know what is where...
There is a reason only lesserknown, niche games use that combo.
EDIT: and two pages of discussion over 10 days proved my point. The demand simply tiny, even just speak about it.