It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Swordhaven: Iron Conspiracy is a classic party-based RPG – and it’s coming soon on GOG!

Explore the land of Nova Drakonia, embark on quests unique to your character, discover mysterious artefacts of the ancients, and unravel a hidden conspiracy that threatens the very existence of the world.

Check out the DEMO and wishlist it now!
avatar
Ruvika: Looks good! I been trying the demo, it's fun and a really well optimized game (something really rare in this times) wishlisted and looking forward!
avatar
Carradice: Fun + optimized? Nice to hear. Last demo of another rpg I tried in GOG lacked so much in the latter department that I never found out about the former. I will give this one a chance, then.
I like the combat system, it's simple and, currently no, will allow you to choose between RT and Turn Base. The story is generic. But I repeat, it's fun and it runs well on my potato XD
avatar
dtgreene: * RTwP has neither of those traits. You get irregular pauses, which destroys both the rhythm and the fluidity.
You get pauses when you want them, so you have exactly the rhythm you're comfortable with at that particular moment.
avatar
dtgreene: (Plus, it's often hard to tell what's going on in RTwP combat.)
Far easier than in full real time. And what's going on has to do with the information that's displayed, not with the combat style. Entirely likely to not know why something's happening in turn based too, if the inner workings aren't displayed.
avatar
dtgreene: This can be done in turn based. In Wasteland 1, for example, all ranged combat happens at the same time.
Hardly the same thing.
avatar
dtgreene: You can have a turn based battle system where you can do this. Just delay until after the enemy's turn comes up, then perform your own action.

Also, being able to react perfectly does destroy some of the suspense, particularly when it comes to healing injured characters before the enemy has a chance to finish them off.
The first is not in the least the same thing, in fact I may say it's the opposite of what I'm referring to, since in that case the enemy is guaranteed to act first. And that sort of suspense is definitely what I want to avoid; play for immersion, escapism and a power fantasy, not to trigger my often already crippling anxiety even more, thank you very much.
avatar
dtgreene: It's common, when positioning is involved, for a unit to be able to both move and attack in the same round.

Also, not every game needs positioning; battle systems can work fine without that mechanic.
Some games have those systems, I also play them, but I don't prefer them and wouldn't exactly say that they work fine in general. And being able to move and attack in the same round is, again, hardly the same.
avatar
dtgreene: That's what autobattle features are for, and they're found in many turn based games.

Then again, if random encounters in level-approriate areas are this easy, the game is likely too easy.

(There's also the approach of getting rid of the regular attack; the CRPG I'm making is not going to have a notion of "regular attack", for example.)
Autobattle options take away control from the player, no thank you. And please, let common encounters be easy, especially later in the game, that reverse difficulty curve that I know you hate but which is something I look for, see the power fantasy part. And taking away regular attacks is an unnecessary complication in itself, and really wouldn't work with how I play, slow and patient and as frugal as you can possibly be (since I'm assuming that non-regular attacks use some sort of resource in some manner).
avatar
dtgreene: Full control isn't always a good thing. When the player has full control over the encounter, the encounter no longer poses a threat and is therefore pointless.

The timing of turn based has the advantage of being rhythmically regular, and also keeps the battle from essentually "running away". In turn based combat, if you lose a battle, you likely know why you lost.
Again, it is a good thing for me, and being constantly threatened is not.
And, also again, knowing what's going on has to do with what information's displayed. If the proper information is shown, you'll know exactly what happened.
avatar
dtgreene: * RTwP has neither of those traits. You get irregular pauses, which destroys both the rhythm and the fluidity.
avatar
Cavalary: You get pauses when you want them, so you have exactly the rhythm you're comfortable with at that particular moment.
Except not because you pretty much need auto-pause enabled.

Even without auto-pause, there's the problem that you might not press pause fast enough, at which point you're punished for you, the player, lacking the reflexes to react in time. In my view, this makes the game less of an RPG.

avatar
dtgreene: (Plus, it's often hard to tell what's going on in RTwP combat.)
avatar
Cavalary: Far easier than in full real time. And what's going on has to do with the information that's displayed, not with the combat style. Entirely likely to not know why something's happening in turn based too, if the inner workings aren't displayed.
To me, real-time games are typically action games where you control a single character, not RPGs (as I define them). Games of this sort are, in some respects, easier to follow because there isn't as much to keep track of.

You can keep track of more things in turn-based combat than in real-time combat, and that ends up reflected in the design of such games.
avatar
dtgreene: You can have a turn based battle system where you can do this. Just delay until after the enemy's turn comes up, then perform your own action.

Also, being able to react perfectly does destroy some of the suspense, particularly when it comes to healing injured characters before the enemy has a chance to finish them off.
avatar
Cavalary: The first is not in the least the same thing, in fact I may say it's the opposite of what I'm referring to, since in that case the enemy is guaranteed to act first. And that sort of suspense is definitely what I want to avoid; play for immersion, escapism and a power fantasy, not to trigger my often already crippling anxiety even more, thank you very much.
If the enemy is guaranteed to act first, then that party-wide healing spell you're casting is guaranteed to go after the enemy, allowing it to heal the damage inflicted each turn. This reliability can be quite useful. (For example, the SaGa 2 remake's final boss is much easier if you ensure that your healing goes either always first and always last, and the latter is easier to accomplish (though I've done the former).)

The suspense helps make things less predictable. When things become too predictable, things become boring, as every encounter with the same group of enemies plays out the same way. Add some decent RNG, however, and things become much less boring, as you never know what might happen. (I note that this sort of thing is why roguelikes/roguelites are so popular; the randomness in world and treasure generation helps keep the game from being too predictable. Also, randomizers.)
Post edited May 20, 2024 by dtgreene
avatar
dtgreene: That's what autobattle features are for, and they're found in many turn based games.

Then again, if random encounters in level-approriate areas are this easy, the game is likely too easy.

(There's also the approach of getting rid of the regular attack; the CRPG I'm making is not going to have a notion of "regular attack", for example.)
avatar
Cavalary: Autobattle options take away control from the player, no thank you. And please, let common encounters be easy, especially later in the game, that reverse difficulty curve that I know you hate but which is something I look for, see the power fantasy part. And taking away regular attacks is an unnecessary complication in itself, and really wouldn't work with how I play, slow and patient and as frugal as you can possibly be (since I'm assuming that non-regular attacks use some sort of resource in some manner).
Autobattle could still be controllable, or at least have your party's actions predictable (like having everyone only use regular attacks, or the action that was just used). So, if it's optional, it doesn't take away control from the player.

There's also the idea of having common encounters not always be the same difficulty. Put in some easy encounters that aren't serious threats, but also throw in the occasional problem enemy, so that the player can't just snooze through all the fights. This sort of thing also makes it so that the player has to decide whether it's worth spending resources on a fight; if there's a problem enemy, it might be worth using that costly spell to get rid of it as soon as possible, but you don't want to use it on less dangerous enemies.

(Like, for example, if there's a level draining enemy, you really *don't* want it to be able to act, so you may be willing to spend resources to get rid of it quickly (or to disable it), whereas it doesn't make sense to use too many resources on the benign enemy it comes with.)

avatar
dtgreene: It's common, when positioning is involved, for a unit to be able to both move and attack in the same round.

Also, not every game needs positioning; battle systems can work fine without that mechanic.
avatar
Cavalary: Some games have those systems, I also play them, but I don't prefer them and wouldn't exactly say that they work fine in general. And being able to move and attack in the same round is, again, hardly the same.
Being able to move and attack in the same turn, or simply being able to move multiple squares in one turn, is needed for melee and ranged combat to feel balanced.

Just look at Ultima 3-6, or Nox Archaist for that matter; on your turn you can either move 1 square or attack. This sort of setup heavily favors ranged attacks in a way that a game like, say, Pool of Radiance, does not.

avatar
Cavalary: And, also again, knowing what's going on has to do with what information's displayed. If the proper information is shown, you'll know exactly what happened.
It has to do with having the time to read those messages. In RTwP, you could easily not realize what's happening until it's too late, as the messages keep appearing. Turn based, on the other hand, gives you as much time as you need to read the displayed information, or to check the state after each round without having to be fast enough (as a player) to paus in time.
Post edited May 20, 2024 by dtgreene
I feel like debating between real time with pause and turn-based is like trying to convince someone else that your genre of game is better. Might be a fun intellectual exercise but I don't see it convincing anyone. People like what they like.

Besides, turn-based enjoyers are eating well lately with developers like Larian doing well. Not every game has to cater to your taste.
avatar
sergeant_citrus: Besides, turn-based enjoyers are eating well lately with developers like Larian doing well. Not every game has to cater to your taste.
There was, however, a time when this was definitely not the case. Lots of RTwP games (like Baldur's Gate) got released that became popular, while turn-based WRPGs became scarce and basically disappeared for a while.

I actually see that period of time as the start of the worst period as far as CRPGs (both J and W) are concerned.

(JRPGs had different issues around this time.)
avatar
dtgreene: There was, however, a time when this was definitely not the case. Lots of RTwP games (like Baldur's Gate) got released that became popular, while turn-based WRPGs became scarce and basically disappeared for a while.
That's fair, I feel a bit similarly with so many 4X's for a while going real-time (Paradox games being a prime example) when I vastly prefer turn-based in that genre. That said, rather than discouraging real-time 4X and grand strategy, I just try to support and encourage turn-based versions. The industry is big enough that we can all get something to our tastes luckily.

(Wish we had more immersive sims and stealth tactics games like Desperadoes though ...)
avatar
dtgreene: There was, however, a time when this was definitely not the case. Lots of RTwP games (like Baldur's Gate) got released that became popular, while turn-based WRPGs became scarce and basically disappeared for a while.
avatar
sergeant_citrus: That's fair, I feel a bit similarly with so many 4X's for a while going real-time (Paradox games being a prime example) when I vastly prefer turn-based in that genre. That said, rather than discouraging real-time 4X and grand strategy, I just try to support and encourage turn-based versions. The industry is big enough that we can all get something to our tastes luckily.

(Wish we had more immersive sims and stealth tactics games like Desperadoes though ...)
At the time, it felt like the industry *wasn't* big enough to support both turn-based and RTwP.
avatar
sergeant_citrus: (Wish we had more immersive sims and stealth tactics games like Desperadoes though ...)
I guess that you played already Blades of the Shogun?
avatar
sergeant_citrus: Besides, turn-based enjoyers are eating well lately with developers like Larian doing well. Not every game has to cater to your taste.
This particular game does both. That's what started this line of conversation...I know e.g. Pillars of Eternity II had issues trying to add a turn-based mode to a RTWP game (once it became apparent that "turn-based is dead" was actually the opposite of true). Designing for both from the start does have a better chance of working, probably.
avatar
sergeant_citrus: (Wish we had more immersive sims and stealth tactics games like Desperadoes though ...)
avatar
Carradice: I guess that you played already Blades of the Shogun?
All of Mimimi's games are great! Still haven't played the last DLC for Shadow Gambit though.
Looks interesting, wishlisted.