Turn based > Baldur's Gate pause all the damn time and break the flow of combat.
Just a fact, man.
I'm going to go with not a fact but an opinion.
RTwP is nice in that easy combats can go much faster, you can control where the breaks in combat are, it feels much more fast paced when everything is moving at the same time and in my opinion generally looks better in most games (with some exceptions)
Turn based is nice in that it allows you more thought into your actions, more can be tactically planned based on turn order, it feels less chaotic and you can offer much tougher decisions due to the extra time to think on your actions.
I very much like both options, but to say it's a "fact" that one is better than the other I would say is false just because they both have advantages and drawbacks. It's really opinion on if those drawbacks are worth the advantages and different people feel differently on the issue. If you get a chance look up the poll inexile did with the torment game, it definitely illustrates a lot of points for both sides. Not to mention how *cough* passionate people can get over it.
The amount of auto-pause options in BG2 means you get the best of both worlds.
When running Sword Cost Strategems I'd have the game auto-pause on target death or disappearance, weapon ineffective, spell finished casting, at a certain HP threshold, etc.
The one big advantage of TB, rather than RTwP, is that it's easier to balance things that have major effects on movement and such, but I have no expectation that this is the kind of game that's going to have a bunch of effects like that.
I'm curious to see what combat in Torment ends up looking like, now that it's totally turn-based.
For what it's worth, as a Kickstarter backer, I would be irate if they switched gears to go turn-based now. Still pretty irked with the Torment team for pretending a vote of 1/10th of the principles is a valid way to steer development.
It has nothing to do with the perceived superiorities of either methodology, but the nostalgia factor is for RTwP. Nostalgia is what leads you to back these games in the first place.
For what it's worth, as a Kickstarter backer, I would be irate if they switched gears to go turn-based now. Still pretty irked with the Torment team for pretending a vote of 1/10th of the principles is a valid way to steer development.
It has nothing to do with the perceived superiorities of either methodology, but the nostalgia factor is for RTwP. Nostalgia is what leads you to back these games in the first place.
Hey, I voted turn-based in Torment. The team said they were leaning that way anyway, so the vote was basically a check-in with the public. Since it ended up 50/50, they went the direction they would have gone anyway.
Not the world's biggest fan of RTwP, never was even when BG introduced it. I'll still love Pillars anyway, I'm sure.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
For what it's worth, as a Kickstarter backer, I would be irate if they switched gears to go turn-based now. Still pretty irked with the Torment team for pretending a vote of 1/10th of the principles is a valid way to steer development.
It has nothing to do with the perceived superiorities of either methodology, but the nostalgia factor is for RTwP. Nostalgia is what leads you to back these games in the first place.
Hey, I voted turn-based in Torment. The team said they were leaning that way anyway, so the vote was basically a check-in with the public. Since it ended up 50/50, they went the direction they would have gone without the vote.
Not the world's biggest fan of RTwP, never was even when BG introduced it. I'll still love Pillars anyway, I'm sure.
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
0
Options
Sir CarcassI have been shown the end of my worldRound Rock, TXRegistered Userregular
For what it's worth, as a Kickstarter backer, I would be irate if they switched gears to go turn-based now. Still pretty irked with the Torment team for pretending a vote of 1/10th of the principles is a valid way to steer development.
It has nothing to do with the perceived superiorities of either methodology, but the nostalgia factor is for RTwP. Nostalgia is what leads you to back these games in the first place.
Hey, I voted turn-based in Torment. The team said they were leaning that way anyway, so the vote was basically a check-in with the public. Since it ended up 50/50, they went the direction they would have gone anyway.
Not the world's biggest fan of RTwP, never was even when BG introduced it. I'll still love Pillars anyway, I'm sure.
Yeah, I liked the Infinity (and later Aurora) games in spite of the combat. I'm not a fan of real-time. I much prefer turn-based.
0
Options
AkimboEGMr. FancypantsWears very fine pants indeedRegistered Userregular
There's plenty to be said for both RTwP and TB combat. Both could work well in this kind of game.
However, PoE was presented from day one as a spiritual successor to BG2 and the Infinity engine games. That necessarily means RTwP.
Expecting and/or hoping for TB would be silly.
Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
I like pausebased combat. Even when it's as limited as modern Fallout, I've managed to pull of stupid stunts with it. Overheadcontrol of a party with wizards is great.
I've always preferred RTwP. I hate hate hate the slog that a lot of TB games turn into, where way too much time has to be spent on doing absolutely trivial shit I'd rather just blitz through. With RTwP I can just let the game run until I get to the more intense/interesting/whatever spots, and then micromanage to my heart's content. TB is still fine, and at times great if a lot of things are happening simultaneously. It's the downtime I abhor.
Primarily, I like control. RTwP gives me more control over the flow of the game as opposed to TB. Ergo my preference for it. One reason I absolutely hate games that are obviously on rails, there's zero control over what I'm doing and when.
PS. Fuck everything about Torment being turn-based.
At the risk of the whole "That's why they didn't show any videos before!". I'm not that huge a fan of how fast it seems to be animated. That's like, almost DA2 fast. Which was way too fast.
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
While I'm not at all dissing your opinion on the speed, I have to say that, with a couple of decades of RPGs under my belt by now, faster battle resolution is way better for me than having to watch everyone make painstakingly-slow attacks, if only because that time really adds up when it comes to adding gameplay bloat. Every combat lasting an extra 2-3 minutes minimum simply because everything goes so slowly saps away big chunks of time from actually being able to play the game; by the time the end of the game hits, you've spent several extra hours just watching people thwack away at each other, which does nothing at all to improve the story or the combat.
On the other hand, I would argue that turn-based gives you more control. Nothing's going to pass you by.
Nothing's going to pass you by, no matter how much you'd prefer it to pass you by.
That's the gist of what I was saying, I have no control over whether or not stuff is passing me by.
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
But that means basically replacing the gameplay entirely, because there's just not much you can do to make point-and-click combat interesting beyond the usual ability, attack, and item usage that the gametype already uses. If the choice is to ditch the paradigm completely, which means also losing out on all the story and everything because of all those resources going into the gameplay instead of the story, and being able to just fast-track combat, I'll definitely take the second option.
Well, hoping for anything is fine. Expecting, yeah.
So, in hopes of ending what I started, I am very much aware that this game was never stated to be turn based. I merely commented that, which it being official (to me, with that video) my little string of hope that maybe there would be a turned based option is gone. And mind you, it was merely that, a little string of hope. Also, realistically, I know there would never be a turned-based option, as it's an entirely different set of gameplay mechanics.
So, let's end the debate. Divinity/Torment will give us turned based junkies our fix, Pillars (and DA:I) will give the RTwP junkies theirs.
Then they should strive to make each combat encounter interesting.
Now, if some developer actually managed that, it'd be a sight to see. Turn-based combat is fine, it just always has parts that end up being a slog.
I think Temple of Elemental Evil might be the only game that's managed this, at least in terms of complex tabletop (or tabletop-like) rules presented in turn-based form. There were still some bullshit combat scenarios, but for the most part, each fight was interesting and took a lot of thought to make work out.
On the other hand, much like Divinity, it also tends to mean your game focuses on the combat, because for whatever damn reason, game developers refuse to go with a less is more philosophy, and make maybe 1-3 big fights per level (or whatever term you might use in a non-level-based game), while focusing on story and character interaction otherwise. If we could ever move past (or even just one or two games could) the idea that what makes RPGs interesting is leveling dudes by fighting a lot, then we could see some pretty neat shit. The original Torment accomplishes this in a way, if you utilize cheats to make every combat end in a few seconds and just pretend like they never happened.
Then they should strive to make each combat encounter interesting.
Now, if some developer actually managed that, it'd be a sight to see. Turn-based combat is fine, it just always has parts that end up being a slog.
Let's not act like Real Time with Pause never has slog-like parts. It's a symptom that is endemic throughout the genre, no matter what type of system you're using.
Posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3vDQaUnNo8#t=28
Steam profile.
Getting started with BATTLETECH: Part 1 / Part 2
The Obsidian curse spreads.
I'm joking.
But it's Future.
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
The words rps, obsidian and tomorrow never seem to work out.
This is like the fourth time.
That knock down ability has the same icon as the destruction spell. I also see the icons for the haste and heroism.
Still on my radar, and while I knew it wasn't, I guess confirmation it's not turn based is disappointing. One can always hope!
Why would it ever be turn based? BG2 wasn't turne based. And this is future-BG2.
It's BG3! Plus those character customisation options are super sweet.
Sure it is!
Auto-pause every 6-seconds in combat!
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Just a fact, man.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I'm going to go with not a fact but an opinion.
RTwP is nice in that easy combats can go much faster, you can control where the breaks in combat are, it feels much more fast paced when everything is moving at the same time and in my opinion generally looks better in most games (with some exceptions)
Turn based is nice in that it allows you more thought into your actions, more can be tactically planned based on turn order, it feels less chaotic and you can offer much tougher decisions due to the extra time to think on your actions.
I very much like both options, but to say it's a "fact" that one is better than the other I would say is false just because they both have advantages and drawbacks. It's really opinion on if those drawbacks are worth the advantages and different people feel differently on the issue. If you get a chance look up the poll inexile did with the torment game, it definitely illustrates a lot of points for both sides. Not to mention how *cough* passionate people can get over it.
When running Sword Cost Strategems I'd have the game auto-pause on target death or disappearance, weapon ineffective, spell finished casting, at a certain HP threshold, etc.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I'm curious to see what combat in Torment ends up looking like, now that it's totally turn-based.
It has nothing to do with the perceived superiorities of either methodology, but the nostalgia factor is for RTwP. Nostalgia is what leads you to back these games in the first place.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
Hey, I voted turn-based in Torment. The team said they were leaning that way anyway, so the vote was basically a check-in with the public. Since it ended up 50/50, they went the direction they would have gone anyway.
Not the world's biggest fan of RTwP, never was even when BG introduced it. I'll still love Pillars anyway, I'm sure.
Hey, I voted turn-based in Torment. The team said they were leaning that way anyway, so the vote was basically a check-in with the public. Since it ended up 50/50, they went the direction they would have gone without the vote.
Not the world's biggest fan of RTwP, never was even when BG introduced it. I'll still love Pillars anyway, I'm sure.
Yeah, I liked the Infinity (and later Aurora) games in spite of the combat. I'm not a fan of real-time. I much prefer turn-based.
However, PoE was presented from day one as a spiritual successor to BG2 and the Infinity engine games. That necessarily means RTwP.
Expecting and/or hoping for TB would be silly.
It makes teleporting fucking sick.
Primarily, I like control. RTwP gives me more control over the flow of the game as opposed to TB. Ergo my preference for it. One reason I absolutely hate games that are obviously on rails, there's zero control over what I'm doing and when.
PS. Fuck everything about Torment being turn-based.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
Nothing's going to pass you by, no matter how much you'd prefer it to pass you by.
That's the gist of what I was saying, I have no control over whether or not stuff is passing me by.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
Mind you, I'm not saying Obsidian should change it at this point. I'm just saying what I would've preferred.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
So, in hopes of ending what I started, I am very much aware that this game was never stated to be turn based. I merely commented that, which it being official (to me, with that video) my little string of hope that maybe there would be a turned based option is gone. And mind you, it was merely that, a little string of hope. Also, realistically, I know there would never be a turned-based option, as it's an entirely different set of gameplay mechanics.
So, let's end the debate. Divinity/Torment will give us turned based junkies our fix, Pillars (and DA:I) will give the RTwP junkies theirs.
Now, if some developer actually managed that, it'd be a sight to see. Turn-based combat is fine, it just always has parts that end up being a slog.
I think Temple of Elemental Evil might be the only game that's managed this, at least in terms of complex tabletop (or tabletop-like) rules presented in turn-based form. There were still some bullshit combat scenarios, but for the most part, each fight was interesting and took a lot of thought to make work out.
On the other hand, much like Divinity, it also tends to mean your game focuses on the combat, because for whatever damn reason, game developers refuse to go with a less is more philosophy, and make maybe 1-3 big fights per level (or whatever term you might use in a non-level-based game), while focusing on story and character interaction otherwise. If we could ever move past (or even just one or two games could) the idea that what makes RPGs interesting is leveling dudes by fighting a lot, then we could see some pretty neat shit. The original Torment accomplishes this in a way, if you utilize cheats to make every combat end in a few seconds and just pretend like they never happened.
Let's not act like Real Time with Pause never has slog-like parts. It's a symptom that is endemic throughout the genre, no matter what type of system you're using.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970