Turn based versus real time. This is a topic that has divided CRPG geek forums since the beginning of time.
Both have their pros and cons, so the choice is basically down to weighing these against your projects goals. We all have our preferences, prejudices and/or irrational hatreds when it comes to a particular system.
If we can consider that there is a scale with Turn Based and Real Time combat systems as polar opposites, there are the other alternatives, such as Phase Based and Real Time with pause between the two. There is a possibility that a system could be conceived that would shatter this definition completely.
Another interesting thing about combat systems in nearly all games is that they are essentially abstractions of real combat. In that sense, the realism of combat can be taken lightly. When this idea is applied to CRPG's, where combat systems are based a lot more on character statistics than in other genres, and therefore combat systems have more abstraction, the real-ness (I don't think "reality" fits in this context) is not important at all. That essentially eliminates choice in that area, if you're intending to make a real RPG. Combat doesn't have to be real. Hell, it could be just a bunch of dice rolls with some pretty animation for all that it matters. But that's not the only factor.
You've also got the fun factor. This is perhaps the most important, as, generally, people play games in order to have fun. To have fun, you have to be doing something. Depending on the graphical quality of the game, virtually automated combat may get you the sales volume you need, I'd imagine that quite a few people have fun when they are being wowed by pretty graphics. The developers of Dungeon Siege should be happy that most of their customers are too mentally challenged to realize that pretty graphics are a heap prettier in movies than games. This means, that to attract a more intelligent gamer (if you need to), you must make the game, and generally, in the combat heavy CRPG genre, that means the combat, fun. This is where difficulties set in. People have very different ideas of what makes combat fun. Some find tactical thinking, such as what is generally found in Turn Based games, is what fun is all about. Others prefer a nail biting, adrenaline rushing, edge of your seat action to satiate their need for fun. A mix of the two is essentially impossible if one bases a system off of previous combat systems. Phase Based offers a tactical experience similar to that of turn based, while Real Time with Pause seems to add the worst components of both Turn Based (slowness) and Real Time (lack of tactics), to make an incredibly dull system.
Now, in the concept of a true RPG, fun wouldn’t be a factor, and let us get back to that for my final point on combat systems. Earlier, I mentioned that true RPG’s have combat that is essentially based on character statistics. This completely rules out the player having direct control over the combat. In a tactical turn based system, performance in combat is based on the players tactical ability, and in real time combat, performance in combat is based on the players reflexes. Neither system is optimal in a true roleplaying sense. I think assuming tactical ability is pretty much as bad as assuming good reflexes. There will be people who have little to no tactical ability, just as there will be people with bad reflexes. This also has impacts on fun, but I think those are fairly obvious.
My conclusion on combat, is that if you are going to make a “True CRPGâ€, combat should be automated. Otherwise, do whatever your target audience prefers. (A possible tangent of this comment would be to discuss the merits of different target audiences, the effects their preferences have on game development (esp. costs) and the expected sales volume that would come from different target audiences.) Now, with automation not being especially fun, You can essentially count out the idea of combat in a “True CRPG†being fun.
_______
Reference: Treatise on Combat to Pink Floyd. Gareth Davies, 2002
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21
I’ve written on the topic of what type of party (if any) before, so I’ll just post the links rather than reiterate my opinions yet again.
http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1926
Deathy said:
I thought that now we have a variety of users with differring opinions (unlike 8 months ago, when there was really only one opinion), it is now time to start digging up old and boring topics so that we can have some kind of real discussion on them.
First of all, we need to define what kind of party control we are talking about. There are two main types that I wish to discuss (since I have a different point of view on both of them.)
- Player created parties
I don't really have a problem with these kinds of parties, because you can pretend that you are roleplaying a group of characters, their social interactions with each other, the world and the story in which they find themselves in, instead of just a single character. This allows a lot more depth, and can be effective in emulating a P&P RPG session for some people. However, it depends on the style of game as to whether it is appropriate, some games (and I'll refuse mentioning any specifically, as that's one of the best ways to derail a thread, and I don't want to do that from the first post) intend to project a feeling of loneliness, which would only be destroyed by having extra party members around.
In CRPG's, party based, with characters created by the player, can be a good option, probably the best, considering the alternatives for party control.
- NPC's - Completely controlled by player.
In my opinion, this would have to be the stupidest genre convention that I have ever seen. In the first place, it was introduced as a way of fixing the problems with companion AI. In effect, it acts like somebody has completely missed the point of NPC's to begin with, and has just made matters worse.
An example of this stupidity would be a situation in which a player directs an NPC to do something that the NPC's personality disagree's with. What do we do here? Do we take control away from the player, thus causing player frustration? Do we do nothing, resulting in the NPC's personality prior to joining the player being completely unimportant, or do we do something completely stupid, like having the NPC complain that it had to do something it didn't want to? Could we have a morale stat, that would make the character leave you if you did this too much? All things considered, I think that this solution just makes things a lot more difficult from a design standpoint. The problem hasn't been solved, just made a lot harder, due to idiotic problem solving techniques.
Time for a quote from The Simpsons, one that I've used in just about every discussion about this topic.
"I know! We'll dig our way out!"
It makes a lot more sense if it's put into context, watch the episode "Homer the Detective" in Season 5.
- AI controlled NPC's
This isn't really all that bad in theory, since you don't control the NPC's, you don't get frustrated when they don't do exactly what you want them to. In practice, they often, due to poor AI programming, do things that they shouldn't do, considering their supposed personality (Shooting you in the back with automatic weapons). Basically, for this to work, you'd have to spend a lot of time in programming AI scripts for companion NPC's. And, while you're at it, why not start programming better AI for enemy NPC's?
AI takes up a lot of time, effort and skill to do right, and I'm assuming that in the games that have full NPC companion control, the developers were restricted in one of those areas.
AI is one of those areas that is neglected, as the average gamer doesn't really notice how things work that often.
- A mix of the two. Part one - Player controlled party and joinable NPC's
What should you do here? On one hand, inconsistency is bad, you have a group of characters that you can control, and a group that follows you, but can't really be controlled. It can lead to player frustration if you don't clearly define which character is which. On the other hand, it can be quite useful to have joinable NPC's as a means of plot development. It's a touchy subject, and one I haven't put too much thought into so far. I'll leave it for another day, and possibly another thread.
- A mix of the two. Part two - Some player control over companion NPC's.
The PC is generally the leader of the group, so it seems reasonable that the player should have a degree of control over the rest of the party ie: what he can do with vocal commands. I haven't really put too much thought into this either, but it has been done before, with differing degrees of success. It may be the ideal solution to the problem of NPC control. But I'll leave this one to be discussed in depth to somebody else.
In conclusion, I think, out of the many ways of doing party based CRPG's, have a party of Player Characters seems to be the best, as it can provide more depth, and has some degree of logical justification (the player is the party itself).
Thanks for reading this - It's a bit longer than what I had intended.