Turn based or not?

Remove all ads!

POR and TOEE were in my view made very lame, by the so called 'turn based' drivel, whereas BG series was great because everything happened at once.

If this BG3 is 'turn (or is it turd?) based combat, then I won't buy it. Simple as that. I've had enough of turn based fights that take hours to complete a single round of combat.

 

Given that none of the other BG games are turn based, I really doubt BG3 would be.

 

It all depends on how they do it. I haven't played The Temple of Elemental Evil, but Ruins of Myth Drannor didn't have the most exiting battles. However, the turn based system in the Might and Magic games works like a charm, and the best thing is that you can turn it on and off just by hitting the enter button. In easy fights you go real time, and if it gets more difficult and you need to use magic and stuff you choose turn based.

 

The turn system of ToEE was good. They could make something similar. Real time wouldn't be bad, either. Turn-based is more realistic rules-wise, but real time is more realistic reality-wise. Can't say I don't care, but I don't really favour either option over the other. Just let them make it right bugless and I'll be fine.

 

Tactical games have recently been sliding towards real time with the pause function. Much like Baldur's Gate. If the developers know what is good for them they will not make it turn based, however they might make an option of turn based gameplay.

There better be a pause feature too, nobody wants to try flicking through a spellbook in the heat of battle.

 

If it is a rehash of the BG series style with auto-pause then I'm in.

 

It's been about 6 years since the Infinity engine was invented. You would think they could come up with a way to have both - so that you can switch back and forth to suit your preference. I hope that's what they do, as I happen to like both systems. They have their strengths and weaknesses and are better for different situations. But considering the history of the series and what fans will likely expect, it'll almost certainly be real time with pause functions.

Could be wrong though.

ps - hey Kaz...long time, no see man.

 

turn based is good for certain games though. take a look at the FF series

 

Don't make a mix of the two types. Look at Fallout: Tactics, look at, well, of course I can't bring up any good examples now, but there is a lot of games that have failed with that mix.


The only game that have succeeded is JA2 and it wasn't even that kind of mix.

 

Maybe an Arcanum-esque system where you can choose either real-time or turn-based? Only less crappy of course, but it has potential.

 

While it certainly won't be - I prefer turn based. Real time with pause is fine too, though some more choices in combat rather than just clicking on what you want to attack would be very, very welcome.

And by turn based - I mean Fallout like turn based, not POR2 like, because that really sucked.

 

How is there a difference? Should I keep an open mind about turn based? I've yet to see a game that does it 'realistically' except BG series.

 

Bg wasn't turn based. It was real time with a pause function. If it was turn based only one character could do something at a time. If anything it was 'time based' in which a character could attack so many times every round (6 seconds).

 

Turn-based is superior to real-time in most respects AFAIAC. BG's RT & pause sytem was about as good as you can expect from real time, party-based RPG combat. The real time & pause system will one day replace turn-based as the superior combat system but only when someone developes perfect pathfinding. BG 1 & 2 were pretty much turn-based anyway except that you could not manage your characters well to keep them from doing stupid things(getting stuck behind someone instead of going right or left, taking the most foolish route to a destination etc.).

For a good example of what a turn-based system can accomplish over a real-time suystem, check out Jagged Alliance 2. In JA2 I can have 18 characters in my "party" in one sector and have each of them doing something different(not JUST 'attack', 'defend', 'move' etc.). I can have Shadow sneak up on and slit the throat(literally aiming for a throat slitting killing attack) of an inattentive guard, while Rudy silently takes position on a rootop, ready to snipe, while someone else is setting a diversionary explosive near the east wall of the compound and someone else is trying to take out both the guards at the front with precise head shots etc.
In RT games, you cannot aim for specific locations(thus far) or do anything to complex or realistic.

I would prefer BG3 went straight TB but I will be happy if they do the realtime & pause thing again(a certainty that they will).

 

Hm... when talking of superiority of one system with regards to the other you should define the scale, the frame, the goal, whatever, by which you measure that superiority. In terms of micro-managing your party and having everything done your way turn based certainly rules. How could you not love JA2?

But TB ceases to be superior to RT when it comes to the flow of the game and the battles. The more your character advances in power, the more you're glad about faster paced combat and scripted NPC behavior - save the most important and difficult battles.

Besides, JA2 was in no way as story dependent as BG series. When it comes to hard core tactical gaming, taking your time, doing one sector at a time, etc. TB is surely better. In the case of a game that not only needs to present thrilling battles but a homogenous advance in story-telling as well, I can see no way around RT.

 

Ah, but Darkstone...you will notice that I said:

and immediately followed by:

Which stands for "As far as I am concerned", which is a fancy way of saying in MY opinion.



I happen to be one of those oddballs who would almost always prefer TB over RT, even for inconsequential battles.

 

Yep, I noticed. Hence I tried to clarify about which respects you were talking - and which respects you left arbitrarily out.

BG simply isn't the kind of game where TB battles would fit. No RPG really is. This is because a RPG is a mixture of different styles: adventure and strategy, interactive fiction and whatnots. There simply isn't the time to nibble on battles for ages. I doubt that, for example, SW:KoTOR would have been a better game if the laughable RT battles would have been replaced by in depths TB.

BTW, I was under the impression that each and every one of us was just arguing his very own opinion... IMHO, people who bloat their posts with phrases like "IMHO" or "AFAIAC" are in need of a good thrashing. Maybe I have to start an acronym bashing thread... NOM (which stands for "no offence meant", which is a fancy way of saying I still love you .

 

Well, RPGs being, at their core, tactical simulations, I feel TB is superior in the respect of simulating tactical slugfests. Having the team/party sniper/archer going for the kill-shot between the eyes at long range against an enemy as opposed to trying the less difficult "just make sure you hit him at least" shot while other members of the squad do whatever they are doing at the same time.

I realize some people emphasize the elements of 'story'/personality/plot etc. but to me these are just superficial dressing.
For fantasy themed CRPGs, Natuk gets it just about right(not as good as JA2) except for the lousy 'spells drain strength' mechanic(which is still way better than the 'fire and forget' D&D system). Natuk allows not only for two-weapon attacks, primary weapon attacks plus secondary weapon parry, weapon plus shield, feignts etc. but also allows for aiming at specific locations(hands, vitals, neck etc.) and all sorts of strategy & tactics.

That sort of stuff is difficult(if not impossible) to pull off in real-time. This is wehre turn-based outshines real-time combat. As I said, real-time & pause will probably eventually supass TB when pathfinding approaches more respectable levels(i.e. Minsc does not get stuck behind Kahlid in an open clearing and Imoen can figure out to wait a few seconds for Jahiera to get out of the way instead of deciding to take the long-and-foolhardy way around.).

BIG disagreement but I suspect this stems from different definitions of what a RPG is. I personally could give a rat's arse about story/plot/characterization so long as they get the mechanics right(which D&D/AD&D does not but RPGs are like sex...when they are good they are great! but when they are bad...theya re still pretty GOOD!) or rather I shoudl say that , to ME, story elements are secondary and serve as a vehicle for the game mechanics.

Agreed(to an extent) but, as I said above, this is largely a matter of how you prioritise.

I will probably not play KoToR and suspect I will not enjoy it much if I DO considering my tastes which run towards non-linearity, freedom and towards party-based RPGs but meh*shrug*.

I know but I was just trying to qualify my assertions and all. If i had not then SOMEONE would have started in with "WHere do you get off telling US what a RPG is..." and all that.

 

That's it.