E3 - The 10 most exciting PC games @ PCWorld

Do any rpgs have a Turn-based-with-Realtime approach?. That is to say, fully turned based, with the option to let the AI largely take over when you don't feel the need to micromanage?

Fluent said:

Well if you have your entire party running on scripts, when exactly would you need to control them?

Click to expand...

It is very flattering that you imagine I can write AI scripts that strategically outperform the human mind. No - the intention of macros in Infinity engine games is just to automate routine decisions, so that your party don't behave like a bunch of complete morons if you don't press pause every millisecond.

Ripper said:

Do any rpgs have a Turn-based-with-Realtime approach?. That is to say, fully turned based, with the option to let the AI largely take over when you don't feel the need to micromanage?

Click to expand...

You can make Dragon Age Inquisition work pretty much like that. I almost never press pause in that, except when fighting dragons on high difficulty setting.

Well I for one am glad for scripts in NWN 2 as the standard party AI is stupid.

In which games do party members act like complete morons when you don't pause constantly? I must have never played that game.

I can see I wouldn't like DA: I very much since you never have to pause in that game.

I prefer tactics and strategy in battle that forces you to pause frequently except for much weaker enemies.

Isn't it better to have turns then if you want to micromanage?

Not really. Turn-based is not "better" than RTwP. I enjoy both equally and they are both different and have their charms.

These days, about the only combat system I'm caring less and less for is real-time action combat, unless it relies heavily on dice rolls and stats.

I didn't mean (or say) that it's better, just that the only point to prefer RTWP in my opinion is to have a faster combat and avoid certain level of micromanagement.

JDR13 said:

Yeah, I never had a problem with micromanaging in the IE games.

Click to expand...

+

Fluent said:

The whole POINT of RTwP in games like Baldur's Gate IS to micromanage things. If you just have your party members running AI scripts, then what is the point of playing a party-based RPG?

Click to expand...

This…

I dont want to have things easier. And cooldown is big con for me.

Roq said:

I almost never press pause in that, except when fighting dragons on high difficulty setting.

Click to expand...

That would be pretty much boring gameplay for me. Different taste in gaming.

Farflame said:

+


This…

I dont want to have things easier. And cooldown is big con for me.




That would be pretty much boring gameplay for me. Different taste in gaming.

Click to expand...

Different taste in gaming - that's right. But don't imagine that real time games are "easier". They are mostly harder and you have to think about positioning and movement in real time... Surely nothing could be much easier than pressing pause every few seconds and when you combine that with save scumming very few encounters can be remotely challenging - that's why people like to solo IE games, when they want a challenge. BG2 is a fun game - but it isn't playing chess against Magnus Carlsen.

Roq said:

Well if you guys like that, there are plenty of games now where you can do it. But, I get the impression that SC:L isn't going to be one of them . And… scripts don't stop you taking full control of your party - when you need to.

Click to expand...

Your probably right. So it's good that I like many different kinds of games.

Ripper said:

Do any rpgs have a Turn-based-with-Realtime approach?. That is to say, fully turned based, with the option to let the AI largely take over when you don't feel the need to micromanage?

Click to expand...

Many of the RTWP games can be played this way as you can select conditions to pause the game in the settings. For instance you could Set it to pause after each combat round effectively playing it turn based. Pausing as needed would probably do exactly what your asking as well.

Roq said:

Different taste in gaming - that's right. But don't imagine that real time games are "easier". They are mostly harder and you have to think about positioning and movement in real time… Surely nothing could be much easier than pressing pause every few seconds and when you combine that with save scumming very few encounters can be remotely challenging - that's why people like to solo IE games, when they want a challenge. BG2 is a fun game - but it isn't playing chess against Magnus Carlsen.

Click to expand...

TB or RT has no bearing on difficulty. It's game design and how they are implemented. Either system can be trivially easy or extremely difficult.

I have played and finished D:OS and POE.

So really the only game I am truly excited about is Enderal.

Roq said:

Well if you guys like that, there are plenty of games now where you can do it.

Click to expand...

Titles? PoE (should) offer(s) a distinct gameplay.

Fluent said:

Not really. Turn-based is not "better" than RTwP.

Click to expand...

It can only works when players are proficient at both types.
When players cant play real time with pause games, "ugoigo" is without question better.
PoE revealed that players cant play rtwp, the lightest real time situation sends them in panic mode and they must pause to input commands.
In RTWP, pause is an emergency button to be pressed in case of emergencies.
When every single situation is an emergency because players lack the modicum of skills to deal with the most casual situation in real time, "ugoigo" is definitively way better.
It cant be otherwise because players can only play that.

sakichop said:

TB or RT has no bearing on difficulty. It's game design and how they are implemented. Either system can be trivially easy or extremely difficult.

Click to expand...

The issue of the implementation is that while a lot of promises was thrown around in order to make real time games more accessible, it was not delivered.

"ugoigo" is the most accessible version of gaming, the requirement on motor skills is low (people who cant play that type of game cant operate computers at a low level (booting, launching an application etc) and the intellectual skill requirement is low (infinite time of decision etc) and often not mattering when it is luck based.

Players who can play RTwP games have all the required skills to play "ugoigo" games. The reverse is not true.
That is the wall hit by PoE.

By the way, while the AI version is going to be a success (as it cant be otherwise), it wont in any way supplement players who want to be second guessed. When an AI is involved, it might go as far as players complaining that the order of tasks completion follows the order they set: the AI completing the first task first, the second second etc
Players demand that the AI is able to see when players do not mean the first task to be completed first. In other words, second guessing them.

Being good at playing real time doesn't mean having a superior intellect as you seem to suggest, specially when for the most part it is based on basic actions learnt and repeated over and over until it is executed without thinking at the highest speed.

I agree that people with fast thinking skills might be better at it, but that doesn't make them more intelligent or skilful, just as a 100m runner is not a better athlete than a marathon runner.

On the other hand skills though partly innate are also acquired. So I don't think there are people who "can't" play real time. I think any normal person can play real time with sufficient skill, but some just don't bother going through the training process as the experience is not satisfactory.
I also feel that real time systems, in which you must take decisions for multiple characters at the same time, are completely unnatural.

Roq mentioned chess, and I think a really good turn-based game should make combat difficult enough that it requires at least a somewhat similar type of thinking. To me, that is the point of TB - that it should present more challenging encounters, because you are afforded the luxury of time to make each decision. If the combat is shallow in a TB game, tedium ensues.

Ripper said:

Roq mentioned chess, and I think a really good turn-based game should make combat difficult enough that it requires at least a somewhat similar type of thinking. To me, that is the point of TB - that it should present more challenging encounters, because you are afforded the luxury of time to make each decision. If the combat is shallow in a TB game, tedium ensues.

Click to expand...

I agree. In chess though, for all but casual games, one tends to play with clocks. Even at tournament time scales, where you can have an hour or more for 40 moves and some additional time after that, you have to very carefully manage your time. That does add an element of urgency that is missing from untimed turn based games. There is also still a lot of strategy and skill at fast chess time scales such as blitz (5 minutes for the whole game) or bullet (3 minutes) - that's really quick! But if you lose a piece or even compromise your position you usually lose - its not all about how fast you can move the pieces!

What I don't really like about straight TB games is that they privilege the player too much - I think games can be more immersive when the player is just a character in the world on a par with other characters and is not treated in any special way. Also it is hardly fair on the mobs if you spend hours plotting their demise and just rewind the world when even that fails!

Chess time limits are significant for human players, but I would think that against a modern chess AI, only the very best human players could win, even if granted unlimited time for moves.

I think the problem with turn-based CRPGs is that they are often not very well designed as strategic games, suitable for strong AI algorithms, and it is often fairly trivial to learn how to 'game' the system, rendering it boring.

That's not just the problem with TB games.
Generally, AI is on it's lowest level in past 20 years. There are three reasons not mutually exclusive. First one, dev studios lack of talent in that area. Second, it's expensive to make. Finally, game critics and magazines don't care for that part, give them shiny graphics and 10/10 is guaranteed.

The result?
Numerous co-op garbage with top notch visuals instead of good old singleplayer games vs "smart" AI.

Chess is a different case.

Most "ugoigo" so called RPGs are based on luck. This changes totally the decision making process (which belongs to optimization of luck patterns) Chess resolution is based on hard relation between pieces. Chess have more in common with real time games than most "ugoigo" have with chess.

Real time games usually rely on hard resolution in order to introduce a benchmark for skills.
Like: without micro, unit A beats unit B, with proper micro, unit B beats unit A.

In chess, the end of a game might be announced ahead because of this.

In a game like wasteland 2, that relies on luck, resolutions with 5 per cent success chances are dealt no different from resolutions with 95 per cent failure chances.
You can take them both, fail the first and succeed the second.

In most "ugoigo" products, uncertainty is produced by lack of luck.
In real time games, uncertainty is produced by lack of skills.

Vitirr said:

Being good at playing real time doesn't mean having a superior intellect as you seem to suggest, specially when for the most part it is based on basic actions learnt and repeated over and over until it is executed without thinking at the highest speed.

Click to expand...

It was not put in terms of superiority. It was put in terms of basic requirements to play a game.
Now it might be hard to argue against the basic requirements to play real time games as being perceived as superior. That was not being the point.

As to the rest, it does not happen that way automatically. A game like PoE gives the opportunity to separate the thinking act from the execution (scouting was supposed to be done all the time, giving the player all the time in the world to design the plan to be executed in real time just after.

In other games, the thinking act is not as separated and it is part of the skillsets to learn how to buy time in order to think the plan of action.
Not the case of PoE, that if, it is required higher skills, do not require that high skills.

I agree that people with fast thinking skills might be better at it, but that doesn't make them more intelligent or skilful, just as a 100m runner is not a better athlete than a marathon runner.

Click to expand...

Marathon runners run marathons. Dashers run dashes.
In the game case, it is about fighting the same combat under different forms.
The same fight might fought in real time or in "ugoigo" sequence.

On the other hand skills though partly innate are also acquired. So I don't think there are people who "can't" play real time. I think any normal person can play real time with sufficient skill, but some just don't bother going through the training process as the experience is not satisfactory.

Click to expand...

When will veteran players exert themselves in order to gain the skills?
That's the wall hit by PoE: thinking that, out there, there were still players with the modicum of skills required to play PoE. There were not. Either players did not have the skills or when they have, they did not bother to play PoE because they prefer to employ their skill sets on other games (that are more demanding than PoE)

I also feel that real time systems, in which you must take decisions for multiple characters at the same time, are completely unnatural.

Click to expand...

On what ground?
Roleplaying several characters at once should also be completely unnatural. Does not prevent so called RPGers to tell that party based games are role playing games.

Of course chess is a different case, and it's not perfectly analogous. I would argue, though, that adding elements of chance to a tightly-designed strategic game does not preclude AI decision-making algorithms that could be highly effective. The problem is in the poorly-designed game, where strategic decisions do not carry enough weight.