God save us from those who know whats good for all.

When developer of niche market genre decides to go mainstream (more sales, good for all), I usually loose interest. So it doesnt seem to be good for all, after all. Where could that calculation go wrong?

Oread race. Personally Im not very interested in all those elemental, demonic, etc. races. I usually go with good old humans/elves/dwarfs/halflings. Hopefully there will be enough "normal" companions as well. Not everyone has to be special, with flaming hair, demonic/angelic heritage, and so on. Hope this post is not considered as rasistic :-)

No. They operate on different principles. RTwP and UgoIgo are not compatible.
No matter the budget, it wont change.

There is no dilemna. If UgoIgo party based RPG players are few, they still are more numerous and by far than RTwP gamers.

Party based RPGs should be made UgoIgo. All of them.

This should have applied first and foremost to UgoIgo players. UgoIgo is good for all. As shown by the persistent lobbying.

So much to unpack here, gonna have to split-quote-reply:

I agree.

As with any game, and particularly with RPGs, you will be required to learn how to do things as you progress through the game. Upon first glance, such things as rounds might seem overwhelming, but as you get experienced with the system and experiment with different approaches the situation will become much less overwhelming to the point whereby, at the end of the game, one is so familiar with the system that one functions along with it almost automatically. Turn-based games will have their own similar learning curves.

This point isn't a criticism about the mechanic as much as it's an exposition of your inability to adjust to differing mechanics.

Which is awesome. Did you know some games even offer the ability to turn off friendly fire? Yes, even all those old classics. But we're back to the old learning thing here, what do you learn by turning off friendly fire? If a game is considered 'harder' if it's harder to avoid friendly fire, then aren't you essentially admitting here that you prefer turn-based combat because… it's easier. More casual. etc.

This is a fallacy derived from over-simplification. Enemies don't move on your turn, but this doesn't mean that this whole taking turns thing is ever a non-movement process. The most irritating aspect of turn-based combat is when the RNG decides that XYZ enemy can have their turn before you, even when you've max'ed initiative.

To which the AI has been designed to knobble your mage with it's first shot, say for example a freezing spell.

Oh look, you're mage has wandered off down the initiative list, somewhere off-screen. Now it's your turn, and you have to use your turn to un-freeze the mage. Now it's their turn again, oh look, they've frozen the mage again. Hmm, gotta get out this loop somehow huh. Oh damn, lost that fight, Ok I'll reload and learn from my mistakes… oh, what's this, this time I get to go first and I've cakewalked it without changing my tactics because I froze them first this time? Yeah, real learning experience.

Imagine how cool it would be if you played a game where you could see the bad guy was casting a freeze spell and you could already be thinking about who's going to cure it before it was even cast, then, when it was cast, instantly deal with it with any character of your choosing while another character casts an immunity buff of that type on the mage. I mean, I can understand if this whole 'quick thinking' thing is too overwhelming for you, perhaps you could use the pause button for longer while you thought about this in the same amount of time it would have taken for your mage to get one single turn in a turn-based game during first-load?

It's not overwhelming to me. I said it could be overwhelming, meaning to someone who is not comfortable with real time combat. And that is fine. You don't need to get better at a game, it's just a game. You can prefer a game with simpler mechanics because you just want to play something simple after work.

My reply was to @Dolby who replied to @Terry. If you read Dolby's comment it seems he equates RTwP targeting with TB targeting (or rather how hard it is to pull off), which my comment debunks.

I'm not gonna go into turn-based combat! Or will I?:) Is it horrible? NO, it can be good or ok. But even when it's done well it does have tendencies to drag on, you know, to slow down the game. Facts remain, it is inferior due to simplification and breakdown of the gameplay into segments, that's all. You can still use all the same skills, features, combat… All it does is gives the computer control over time and some actions…

The vast majority of games are RT games or RTwp or RT with slow-motion that's just a fact. Why? Well, because games evolved.
We now have RT gameplay and the industry knows what's better… Same as around 2 billion people who play RT games… They are just a "few" millions of "lazy" people out there who don't like to micromanage or they get overwhelmed easily by events that happen simultaneously etc… Their inability to feel satisfied when they multitask or the fact they don't like imperfect information makes them think Turnbase is better.
I guess the simplified gameplay experience is more enjoyable for them.
You can argue and say it's just my opinion.
But studies showed that humans can't multitask. Some people outright hate multitasking others just dislike it. Nothing wrong with that.
After all, none of us can actually do it. We can try and improvise…
Rt games give your brains more stimulants and things to process and make faster snap decisions, assumptions based on imperfect information.
Yes, it can get overwhelming.
But all these reasons make it more addictive. SO, that alone if nothing else makes it more fun…
Just look at all the people who use the same gun or a wand to shoot the same pixels every day over and over hours upon hrs. It's crazy!

Clearly you are wrong or we wouldn't be chatting in this thread?
What's with UgoIgo we aren't talking about chess… IS like the term, Turn-Based now out? Man, I'm getting old.

Well,
Final Fantasy what did they do???? GO look what happened to sales and fan base when they changed Trun-base game to RT… Facts are you know facts…

What does all this have to do with the difference in difficulty of targeting between RTwP and TB?

If you do a search on the forums you'll quickly see how the usage of this term is "distributed" over the users.

Discussions or whatever has never based on differing opinions.

Everything turn based is not UgoIgo.

Baldur's gate is turn based. Yet it is designed to play RTwP. This pathfinder product is what. Making a turn based product turn based.

The last few stretch (post-Skald) goals have been nice:

• Themes performed by Symphony Orcestra
• Double Reactivity
• +1 Archetype per Class

Not sure about the Oread race. I guess they're like Earth Genasi?

Surely all these additions are going to stretch out the release date?

[QUOTE=Ivanwah;1061596358. You don't need to get better at a game, it's just a game.
[/quote]
Weird way to put it. Games require skills to be played. It can not be done without acquiring the skills.

It is not about getting better, it is about learning how to play.
It must be admitted. Because it is quite common for UgoIgo players to claim that UgoIgo require more skills than RTwP.

Yea I hope these guys are not biting off more than they can chew. I suspect that the money they are raising is causing a little too much excitement maybe. I know us dollars probably go very far in Russia, lol

Let's hope they don't start setting unrealistic goals anyway for the sake of raising more money.

Yes, but the gap between not knowing how to play a game and knowing how to play the game on easy/story mode is often much smaller than the gap between knowing how to play on easy and knowing how to play on ultra hard. Everybody who used a computer more than 10 times in their life would know how to play Pillars of Eternity on story mode (or whatever the easiest difficulty is called), but path of the damned difficulty is on another level entirely. You need intimate knowledge of the mechanics to beat the game. And even then, it's perfectly possible to finish the game without using some mechanics.

I would be quite disappointed if they didnt prepare stretch goals already since beginning of the project planning.

Not only because of release date, but especially because of the creative direction.

It would be insane to start shooting random stretch goals without considering if they fit in the whole project plan or not.

I know, we saw such kickstarter projects many times in past, I just hope these guys know better.

So THAT's what you're referring to. Alright, in that case Iactually have to agree, since many of my favourite games are exactly that, real time but with rounds (BG, PF:KM etc.). To me that's the right way to pull off a managable and fun RTwWP game, and calling it turn based is factually correct.

That is however not the common use of the term Turn based…

One thing I don't fully get is that a game that is based on a pen and paper version has to be turn based because that is how it is in P&P. I mean P&P kind of has to be turn based … not sure it could be real time and still be doable with people.

I doubt I will explain this right but to me the P&P with people is the way it is because of its nature … and that anything can happen since its real people driving things.

A computer game doesn't have that restriction so I never brought the "it has to be TB just because it is in the pen and paper version" as a good argument for a game to be TB. One is with real people and another is with a computer based game.

They don't have to be identical and in someways they can't be (its software not real people) and in other ways shouldn't be.

Not that making a game TB is wrong or right if based on a P&P version but more that I really don't see it as a good argument to make a computer version TB just because.

I have seen much more convincing discussions based on ease of management for battles, which seem more logical.

One could argue it should be turn based because it's closer to the PnP roots and that's how the original rules were meant to be used? I do however agree it's not a valid argument to why it "has to be" turn based. And I honestly can't say turn based is easier than RTWP either, since if you want you can pause after every round making it a moot point. If anything I've heard turn based is actually HARDER in PF:KM because of the monsters high initiative scores. Which means all monsters get to go before the players…

I reckon it is because people who do P&p think P&p is somehow purer better. So other similar - digital systems who us their rules as a base need to follow or they are bad in their eyes. I think D&D was the first tabletop role-playing game back in the seventies. Probably before the first digital RPGs… so it's all inferior to it I guess…:)

I agree that P&p rules if used in a digital game shouldn't influence the decision regarding Turn-based vs RTwP.
I don't even know why devs use those rules. I guess it's because they come with the already established fan base? Not like It's hard to make new ones.
Anyway, whatever the rules, actually digital games have huge restrictions compared to P&p…
So the rules are always adaptations even if the game is Turn-based. Some things simply can't be done in digital games. And in P&p you have a live Dungeon Master who can improvise on the spot. You can never do that in digital RPGs even if you tried never with a freedom that off a P&p…

I guess if you want RT P&p you would have to go back in time to Middle Ages or start acting and do swordplay and stuff… Star in the next a Lord of the rings! But that's mostly green screen anyway so… :)