[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

BalrogLord, on 18 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I wonder if theyll change it from turn based combat.

Real-time with pause is not turn-based.

[Aptorian]

I'm going to lob this into this thread because it's slightly releated:

Dr. Greg and Dr. Ray - the co-founders of Bioware are leaving the studio

Not terribly surprising I'd say after selling the studio to EA and what with the latest developments. For a while it's been observed that the two did not appear to be the happiest people at gaming events.

Question is if they'll just retire with their millions of dollars or start over, with an independent studio.

[Morgoth]

Another thing that I realised replaying ME3 and comparing that experience to DA2:

In both universes there are specific stereotypes tied to the different cultures and races. The characters you encounter in DA2 exemplify these stereotypes. In ME however, the characters you encounter rarely fit the commonly accepted stereotype, much like how it works in the real world. Garrus is nothing like the popular image of a Turian. Wrex nothing like the stereotype of a Krogang. Liara nothing like the Asari.

And it's not just the main characters. Again and again you meet characters that clash with the stereotype. The Krogan writing bad poetry. The Asari matriarch/bartender and so on and so forth. It reflects the general quality of writing between the two I think.

[Tapper]

Morgoth, on 19 September 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

Another thing that I realised replaying ME3 and comparing that experience to DA2:

In both universes there are specific stereotypes tied to the different cultures and races. The characters you encounter in DA2 exemplify these stereotypes. In ME however, the characters you encounter rarely fit the commonly accepted stereotype, much like how it works in the real world. Garrus is nothing like the popular image of a Turian. Wrex nothing like the stereotype of a Krogang. Liara nothing like the Asari.

And it's not just the main characters. Again and again you meet characters that clash with the stereotype. The Krogan writing bad poetry. The Asari matriarch/bartender and so on and so forth. It reflects the general quality of writing between the two I think.

Well, let's face it. DA:O was already very stereotype, apart from the Dragon-witch. Bloody goody-2-shoes paladin, liberal but mean warlock, beerloving tunneling dwarf, sexually liberated french-accented bard...

This post has been edited by Tapper: 19 September 2012 - 01:44 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 18 September 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 18 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I wonder if theyll change it from turn based combat.

Real-time with pause is not turn-based.

Combat with fixed intervals between attacks does constitute turn base. You select an action from a menu and the character performs it. Some characters have different duration for turns but that does not change the underlying concept. I fail to see how DA is anything but turn based. Having DA not being turn based would required much greater freedom and fluidity, actually controlling the characters action rather then selecting actions from a pre-existing menu.

Take the combat system present in "the witcher 2" as an example of the concept i'm describing, and contract it with DA's.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 19 September 2012 - 03:39 PM

[rhulad]

BalrogLord, on 19 September 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 18 September 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 18 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I wonder if theyll change it from turn based combat.

Real-time with pause is not turn-based.

Combat with fixed intervals between attacks does constitute turn base. You select an action from a menu and the character performs it. Some characters have different duration for turns but that does not change the underlying concept. I fail to see how DA is anything but turn based. Having DA not being turn based would required much greater freedom and fluidity, actually controlling the characters action rather then selecting actions from a pre-existing menu.

Take the combat system present in "the witcher 2" as an example of the concept i'm describing, and contract it with DA's.

True, but I want turn based like it was in the gold box games (or turn based strategy games for those of you unfamiliar with the gold box series). Actually, someone should just remake those.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

DAII was bad enough that I didn't play more than a couple hours. I really enjoyed the first though. I won't get this on release day, but if the reviews look good might grab it.

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

BalrogLord, on 19 September 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 18 September 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 18 September 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I wonder if theyll change it from turn based combat.

Real-time with pause is not turn-based.

Combat with fixed intervals between attacks does constitute turn base. You select an action from a menu and the character performs it. Some characters have different duration for turns but that does not change the underlying concept. I fail to see how DA is anything but turn based. Having DA not being turn based would required much greater freedom and fluidity, actually controlling the characters action rather then selecting actions from a pre-existing menu.

Take the combat system present in "the witcher 2" as an example of the concept i'm describing, and contract it with DA's.

Surely you see the difference between a gameplay pause and sequential combat? The two experiences are totally different; The Witcher is an action-RPG so the comparison doesn't work. A better comparison is of the aforementioned Gold Box games and, say, Baldur's Gate; the former are turn-based, the latter RTwP. They play totally differently.

DA/BG-style real time with pause is exactly that, albeit with a round system in BG's case that makes it somewhat closer to TB - DA doesn't even have that. It's continuous combat that happens to be based more on strategy than direct player skill and revolves around orders rather than button mashing; at no point does that render it turn-based, sequential. The pause exists to allow you to get the AI in order and direct the flow of the battle during a break from the chaos.

Sequential combat is a lot more complex and a turn, yours or the enemy's, isn't a pause - it's a window to plan, respond to what the enemy's up to, execute strategies, and most importantly, ensure that your party members will survive the enemy's turn. This is what makes real turn-based combat so interesting, and is something completely absent in real-time with pause; any idiot can pick some targets to attack during his turn, but making sure that all your men survive the enemy turn and the battle (like in XCOM, for example) is the real challenge.

This post has been edited by POOPOO MCBUMFACE: 21 September 2012 - 02:20 AM

[Lucifer's Heaven]

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 21 September 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Surely you see the difference between a gameplay pause and sequential combat? The two experiences are totally different; The Witcher is an action-RPG so the comparison doesn't work. A better comparison is of the aforementioned Gold Box games and, say, Baldur's Gate; the former are turn-based, the latter RTwP. They play totally differently.

DA/BG-style real time with pause is exactly that, albeit with a round system in BG's case that makes it somewhat closer to TB - DA doesn't even have that. It's continuous combat that happens to be based more on strategy than direct player skill and revolves around orders rather than button mashing; at no point does that render it turn-based, sequential. The pause exists to allow you to get the AI in order and direct the flow of the battle during a break from the chaos.

Sequential combat is a lot more complex and a turn, yours or the enemy's, isn't a pause - it's a window to plan, respond to what the enemy's up to, execute strategies, and most importantly, ensure that your party members will survive the enemy's turn. This is what makes real turn-based combat so interesting, and is something completely absent in real-time with pause; any idiot can pick some targets to attack during his turn, but making sure that all your men survive the enemy turn and the battle (like in XCOM, for example) is the real challenge.

I'm not sure I entirely agree.
Most of what you said about turn based is true, but almost all of that does apply to some RTwP games. Especially those with a round system. In fact a round system is technically a turn based system. And making sure your characters survive the coming enemy's turn very much IS a part of it.
Heck games like BG play with D&D rules. And D&D was literally made by taking turn based tabletop war games, reducing your unit control to a single character, adding story, progression and then someone to be everyone else. When put into a video game they automated many of the moves so that you didn't have to dictate every action, and allow you to pause and direct at will. But everything is still done in rounds/turns. And much of that does actually apply in games like DA:O. Geeze, I remember watching Shiara play it just like a turn based game. She paused and directed every attack all of her team members did, for every fight.
Yeah, BG plays differently to a lot of turn based games, but lots of turn based games play VERY differently to eachother. And that doesn't make any of them inherently superior.

Maybe you consider DA:O too far away, and I don't actually remember if it instigates stuff through background rounds like Neverwinter Nights and such did (though when watching Shiara, it seems like it may well have). But where do you draw the line?
I take it the old Might and Magic games count? How about Grandia 2? Real time exploration, turn based combat(with turns time based), but turns were per individual, not per team (in fact there were a fair few abilities that allowed you to change when others got there turn). Is that still okay when you add unit placement back in? The only example in mind at the moment is Aidyn Chronicles on N64 (combat similar to Might and Magic games, but each unit is always a single character and placement on the field was a bit more important). Take out mandatory pauses, add in the ability to choose default moves for units to take (or just have inbuilt defaults) and you pretty much have BG and it's ilk.

How complex the game, how important tactics are and the depth of strategies you can employ are completely dependant on the individual game. There are plenty of really old school turn based games where tactics are moot/unnecesary, and combat is shallow. And in those games? Any idiot can take their autopaused turn to pick some enemies to attack.
But likewise there are some RTwP games where you have to play smart or you will die. You have to use placement, cover retreats, use well timed heals, block their advances or counter their moves, etc. Seriously, what the hell is the optional pause if not a window to plan, react to the enemy, execute strategies and make sure you survive?! What do you do when you pause? Just stare at the screen and then unpause?

Assuming you did draw a line in there somewhere, still, yours was mostly just a horribly elitist and only half true statement.
As I said, every one of those things you praised about turn based games can be found in RTwP. There is a much larger pool of good turn based games to pull examples from, but it's a much older genre, so that's to be expected. There's waaay more shit ones too.

This post has been edited by Lucifer's Heaven: 21 September 2012 - 03:56 PM

[POOPOO MCBUMFACE]

I don't care about arguing about which is better between the two, just that they're not literally the same thing. It's an argument I've had too often to care any more, my mind's not going to change - unless I find a RTwP game with better combat than, say, Jagged Alliance 2 (see the wonderful Jagged Alliance: Back in Action remake for another great comparison of the two gameplay types) - and I'm not going to change the mind of anyone else beyond pointing them to turn-based games I like and saying "here, play these, they're good". I like one, I don't like the other (though I really enjoyed BG2 and parts of NWN/NWN2 despite this, through the fantastic encounter design, variety of tactics and character builds, etc), and it irritates me when people conflate the two, as if all that's stopping me enjoying RTwP games is some inability to multitask or a violent allergy to seeing more than one little person shuffle around the screen at once.

Sorry if I came across as elitist - I wrote the post in a rush before going to bed at half three this morning, so I went off on a bit more of a tangent than I meant to - but I know which kind of game I prefer, and it's the kind that isn't getting made anymore. That makes me sad sometimes. Turn-based tactical games are dead and anyone who likes them gets ridiculed and chased out of any given conversation. You won. Have fun.

(also, no, DA:O specifically doesn't use a rounds system, just various forms of cooldown; the lead developer used this as the rationale for not including something or other that I can't remember. The alternative explanation is that he's lying to hide basic incompetence, I guess, but it's one point I'll believe him on)

This post has been edited by POOPOO MCBUMFACE: 22 September 2012 - 12:51 AM

[Lucifer's Heaven]

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 21 September 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I don't care about arguing about which is better between the two, just that they're not literally the same thing. It's an argument I've had too often to care any more, my mind's not going to change - unless I find a RTwP game with better combat than, say, Jagged Alliance 2 (see the wonderful Jagged Alliance: Back in Action remake for another great comparison of the two gameplay types) - and I'm not going to change the mind of anyone else beyond pointing them to turn-based games I like and saying "here, play these, they're good". I like one, I don't like the other (though I really enjoyed BG2 and parts of NWN/NWN2 despite this, through the fantastic encounter design, variety of tactics and character builds, etc), and it irritates me when people conflate the two, as if all that's stopping me enjoying RTwP games is some inability to multitask or a violent allergy to seeing more than one little person shuffle around the screen at once.

Sorry if I came across as elitist - I wrote the post in a rush before going to bed at half three this morning, so I went off on a bit more of a tangent than I meant to - but I know which kind of game I prefer, and it's the kind that isn't getting made anymore. That makes me sad sometimes. Turn-based tactical games are dead and anyone who likes them gets ridiculed and chased out of any given conversation. You won. Have fun.

(also, no, DA:O specifically doesn't use a rounds system, just various forms of cooldown; the lead developer used this as the rationale for not including something or other that I can't remember. The alternative explanation is that he's lying to hide basic incompetence, I guess, but it's one point I'll believe him on)

There's a definite gameplay difference between several versions of turn based, let alone between them and RTwP. And yeah, there are a lot of great actual turn based games.
My preference lies more along the Aidyn Chronicles side of things (placement being very important and more room to actually spread out on a reasonable battlefield than the tiny boxed areas some lock you into). Unless I get to set up and ambush, which is a lot of fun, I usually play most RTwP games as though they're pretty much action games. I think that has something to do with my major preference of (unless I'm playing an army) playing a solo character in real time games instead of a whole party. Preferably still tactically. Games like Tenchu

Anyway, I guess I can see where you're coming from, and I don't insist you like them. Though I think "turn based" may be too broad a term, it was mostly the implication that you can't have strategy and planning in real time that annoyed me

And yeah, turn based is a rare breed these days.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Lucifer, on 23 September 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 21 September 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I don't care about arguing about which is better between the two, just that they're not literally the same thing. It's an argument I've had too often to care any more, my mind's not going to change - unless I find a RTwP game with better combat than, say, Jagged Alliance 2 (see the wonderful Jagged Alliance: Back in Action remake for another great comparison of the two gameplay types) - and I'm not going to change the mind of anyone else beyond pointing them to turn-based games I like and saying "here, play these, they're good". I like one, I don't like the other (though I really enjoyed BG2 and parts of NWN/NWN2 despite this, through the fantastic encounter design, variety of tactics and character builds, etc), and it irritates me when people conflate the two, as if all that's stopping me enjoying RTwP games is some inability to multitask or a violent allergy to seeing more than one little person shuffle around the screen at once.

Sorry if I came across as elitist - I wrote the post in a rush before going to bed at half three this morning, so I went off on a bit more of a tangent than I meant to - but I know which kind of game I prefer, and it's the kind that isn't getting made anymore. That makes me sad sometimes. Turn-based tactical games are dead and anyone who likes them gets ridiculed and chased out of any given conversation. You won. Have fun.

(also, no, DA:O specifically doesn't use a rounds system, just various forms of cooldown; the lead developer used this as the rationale for not including something or other that I can't remember. The alternative explanation is that he's lying to hide basic incompetence, I guess, but it's one point I'll believe him on)

There's a definite gameplay difference between several versions of turn based, let alone between them and RTwP. And yeah, there are a lot of great actual turn based games.
My preference lies more along the Aidyn Chronicles side of things (placement being very important and more room to actually spread out on a reasonable battlefield than the tiny boxed areas some lock you into). Unless I get to set up and ambush, which is a lot of fun, I usually play most RTwP games as though they're pretty much action games. I think that has something to do with my major preference of (unless I'm playing an army) playing a solo character in real time games instead of a whole party. Preferably still tactically. Games like Tenchu

Anyway, I guess I can see where you're coming from, and I don't insist you like them. Though I think "turn based" may be too broad a term, it was mostly the implication that you can't have strategy and planning in real time that annoyed me

And yeah, turn based is a rare breed these days.

hit enemy> run away>wait>get hit by enemy>rinse a repeat. Yeah there's just something thats lacking in the whole immersion department that i can't really fathom. Looking back, aside from nostalgia only turn based games i ever enjoyed were civilisation, and the TW series (which had real time combat), though it looks like you two pretty much settled the whole distinction between turn based and sequential (though the distinction was moot imo).

[Morgoth]

BalrogLord, on 24 September 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Lucifer, on 23 September 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 21 September 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I don't care about arguing about which is better between the two, just that they're not literally the same thing. It's an argument I've had too often to care any more, my mind's not going to change - unless I find a RTwP game with better combat than, say, Jagged Alliance 2 (see the wonderful Jagged Alliance: Back in Action remake for another great comparison of the two gameplay types) - and I'm not going to change the mind of anyone else beyond pointing them to turn-based games I like and saying "here, play these, they're good". I like one, I don't like the other (though I really enjoyed BG2 and parts of NWN/NWN2 despite this, through the fantastic encounter design, variety of tactics and character builds, etc), and it irritates me when people conflate the two, as if all that's stopping me enjoying RTwP games is some inability to multitask or a violent allergy to seeing more than one little person shuffle around the screen at once.

Sorry if I came across as elitist - I wrote the post in a rush before going to bed at half three this morning, so I went off on a bit more of a tangent than I meant to - but I know which kind of game I prefer, and it's the kind that isn't getting made anymore. That makes me sad sometimes. Turn-based tactical games are dead and anyone who likes them gets ridiculed and chased out of any given conversation. You won. Have fun.

(also, no, DA:O specifically doesn't use a rounds system, just various forms of cooldown; the lead developer used this as the rationale for not including something or other that I can't remember. The alternative explanation is that he's lying to hide basic incompetence, I guess, but it's one point I'll believe him on)

There's a definite gameplay difference between several versions of turn based, let alone between them and RTwP. And yeah, there are a lot of great actual turn based games.
My preference lies more along the Aidyn Chronicles side of things (placement being very important and more room to actually spread out on a reasonable battlefield than the tiny boxed areas some lock you into). Unless I get to set up and ambush, which is a lot of fun, I usually play most RTwP games as though they're pretty much action games. I think that has something to do with my major preference of (unless I'm playing an army) playing a solo character in real time games instead of a whole party. Preferably still tactically. Games like Tenchu

Anyway, I guess I can see where you're coming from, and I don't insist you like them. Though I think "turn based" may be too broad a term, it was mostly the implication that you can't have strategy and planning in real time that annoyed me

And yeah, turn based is a rare breed these days.

hit enemy> run away>wait>get hit by enemy>rinse a repeat. Yeah there's just something thats lacking in the whole immersion department that i can't really fathom. Looking back, aside from nostalgia only turn based games i ever enjoyed were civilisation, and the TW series (which had real time combat), though it looks like you two pretty much settled the whole distinction between turn based and sequential (though the distinction was moot imo).

Chess is not your thing I guess.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Morgoth, on 25 September 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

BalrogLord, on 24 September 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Lucifer, on 23 September 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

POOPOO MCBUMFACE, on 21 September 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

I don't care about arguing about which is better between the two, just that they're not literally the same thing. It's an argument I've had too often to care any more, my mind's not going to change - unless I find a RTwP game with better combat than, say, Jagged Alliance 2 (see the wonderful Jagged Alliance: Back in Action remake for another great comparison of the two gameplay types) - and I'm not going to change the mind of anyone else beyond pointing them to turn-based games I like and saying "here, play these, they're good". I like one, I don't like the other (though I really enjoyed BG2 and parts of NWN/NWN2 despite this, through the fantastic encounter design, variety of tactics and character builds, etc), and it irritates me when people conflate the two, as if all that's stopping me enjoying RTwP games is some inability to multitask or a violent allergy to seeing more than one little person shuffle around the screen at once.

Sorry if I came across as elitist - I wrote the post in a rush before going to bed at half three this morning, so I went off on a bit more of a tangent than I meant to - but I know which kind of game I prefer, and it's the kind that isn't getting made anymore. That makes me sad sometimes. Turn-based tactical games are dead and anyone who likes them gets ridiculed and chased out of any given conversation. You won. Have fun.

(also, no, DA:O specifically doesn't use a rounds system, just various forms of cooldown; the lead developer used this as the rationale for not including something or other that I can't remember. The alternative explanation is that he's lying to hide basic incompetence, I guess, but it's one point I'll believe him on)

There's a definite gameplay difference between several versions of turn based, let alone between them and RTwP. And yeah, there are a lot of great actual turn based games.
My preference lies more along the Aidyn Chronicles side of things (placement being very important and more room to actually spread out on a reasonable battlefield than the tiny boxed areas some lock you into). Unless I get to set up and ambush, which is a lot of fun, I usually play most RTwP games as though they're pretty much action games. I think that has something to do with my major preference of (unless I'm playing an army) playing a solo character in real time games instead of a whole party. Preferably still tactically. Games like Tenchu

Anyway, I guess I can see where you're coming from, and I don't insist you like them. Though I think "turn based" may be too broad a term, it was mostly the implication that you can't have strategy and planning in real time that annoyed me

And yeah, turn based is a rare breed these days.

hit enemy> run away>wait>get hit by enemy>rinse a repeat. Yeah there's just something thats lacking in the whole immersion department that i can't really fathom. Looking back, aside from nostalgia only turn based games i ever enjoyed were civilisation, and the TW series (which had real time combat), though it looks like you two pretty much settled the whole distinction between turn based and sequential (though the distinction was moot imo).

Chess is not your thing I guess.

not in the slightest.

[Loki]

Concept Art

http://blog.bioware....on-concept-art/

[Loki]

The more I hear, the more I want to play the game already!

http://m.au.ign.com/...ion-huge-levels

[Morgoth]

I'm holding off until we get proper play reviews to get anywhere near excited.

[Loki]

Bioware has never disappointed me yet so I feel I can get excited now XD

[Morgoth]

Loki, on 23 October 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Bioware has never disappointed me yet so I feel I can get excited now XD

Yeah, I still havent forgiven them for DA2, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Current trends would imply that we're getting something like Fable, rather than something resembling DA:O

[Obdigore]

Morgoth, on 23 October 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

Loki, on 23 October 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Bioware has never disappointed me yet so I feel I can get excited now XD

Yeah, I still havent forgiven them for DA2, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Current trends would imply that we're getting something like Fable, rather than something resembling DA:O

I'd prefer a first (or third) person Baldurs Gate 2. Build up your castle/land enough to survive without you. Meanwhile you are out doing whatever. If you do things correctly you can attract blacksmiths and farriers and better soldiers to your castle. But then I've been thinking about putting Stronghold back on my PC for a castle building sim, so w/e.

I think that was baldurs gate 2 where you got the castle and could upgrade it and whatnot.