Feargus Urquhart said:
So, the question is - in all of your minds does combat have to be TB to be game that you all like? I've been thinking a lot about game that we are going to make and maybe some small games that we'll make and publish ourselves and I'm trying to figure out what makes the most sense from a combat perspective.
Well i see it like this.
[begin longwindedness.exe]
I prefer turn-based over real-time. I like to have detailed control and many possibilties during combat. This is for two reasons. One, because i don't really like combat which is minimalistic. RT has this problem in order to keep things snappy, and more often than not, it boils down to repetitive action, with few and uninspiring combat elements. This isn't always the case, but i'll get to it in a second. Two, because i really like having all the time in the world to plan my attacks and tactics. I like looking at my party members, or my single PC, and decide what to do and how to do. One of things i liked in Fallout's combat was planning out my move according to how many APs i had, same goes with X-Com. It works quite well as an abstraction of combat.
Though, real time can also be good. There's no way in hell a real time system can present an equal, or superior level of possibilities that a TB game can. However, it can present fast-paced combat which depends on our skill, and quite frankly, i like that style as well. Being challenged mentality by a TB combat system is as engaging to me as having my coordination and twitch skills challenged by an RT system.
Of course, TB and RT can suck despite their high points. Arcanum is an example - both its RT and TB, while still functional, weren't exactly the best we've seen. If i'm given TB which doesn't add anything to combat i'm not going to like it; the same happens with badly made RT.
To summarize, i prefer TB, but welcome both styles. TB is more of a good bonus than a necessity to me. I've just grown more fond of TB systems because there are some good ones out there, better than RT
There two follow up questions to that, which are is there a form of real-time combat you guys are fine with (...)
To be honest, i can't remember a single CRPG which had real time combat i liked. I can only remember console titles, like Soul Reaver 2, which had good RT combat. That title involved taking multiple enemies in combat, it had a lock-on-enemy possibility, enemies waited for their turn (meaning, if you were being asaulted by two similar enemy types, enemies belonging to other factions would wait - hell, enemies from different factions would even fight between themselves). But the problem is, while that combat system is good, it doesn't fit a CRPG, mainly because of control issues.
Though, come to think of it, there was one action RPG which had decent, although underdeveloped, real time combat, called Revenant. While no doubt a Diablo clone, it allowed for multiple combos, along with blocking maneuvers. This concept is much better than a continuous clicking attack. Having various combat possibilities like that - spells, weapon-specific combos and special attacks, use of block/parrying (and a use of both block and attack patterns) - is always a plus in a RT game.
To summarize i think RT combat should be fun, but also engaging. Give me various possibilties with visible uses and i'll be happy. Simplistic combat, to put it technically, blows.
and what are your opinions of single player w/followers/henchmen vs a fully controlled party?
Good question.
I think that i have to go with party-based gameplay here. Party-based systems offer more combat possibilties, something Temple of Elemental Evil showed quite well. A "single player with follower" system is more limited, and honestly, it works better in real time systems. One of the premises behind turn-based is the effectiveness to which we can control a group of characters. In real time however, keeping it to a minimum of hassle while still maintaing a form of backup - in this case, the henchmen - works much better.
taks said:
i think the new NWN and toee methods of party NPCs is a step in the right direction (a combination of the two)... limited access to all the character's vitals and equipment and such yet not total control. i wouldn't mind a better AI, however, since watching daelen red tiger stand and pick his nose while i'm trying to whack all my foes with spells (at 1FPS no less) is annoying.
I agree. But then again, it depends on what the desired goal is. I prefer having a style of party NPC control like Fallout, which makes NPCs appear to have a degree of individuality. You just give them general orders, give out certain behaviouristic patterns, and off they go. That way they remain useful in combat, while retaining a shred of being individuals, not meat puppets. However i think that having a system where you control every aspect of a character isn't exactly bad in itself. Baldur's Gate allowed for this and it wasn't that bad - my main gripe was the inherent problems with being able to tell my party members to do something then have them complain to me that it shifted reputation (example - have Anomen kill a child and watch him complain. Survey says - WTH?); in the same way, it also removed their individuality because i could decide what i wanted them to increse
for them. Incidentally i think a system like that of Fallout (for NPC behaviour control and inventory management), and a system like that of the IE games (for combat control) wouldn't be a bad system - though i think that, for instance, implementing a system where i could suggest my party members to improve would be interesting. Planescape: Torment has a different take on this, though - you can control party members in combat, and they're dependant of levelling up by you pressing the button (they aren't independant like Fallout or Arcanum's NPCs in that matter), but they decide what to improve themselves.
[end longwindedness.exe - for now :wink: ]
OS episode proves) then please please ! make it turn based only. But if you cannot make it turn based then please make it like this 
)
