Noooo!!! I have a big enough problem just choosing character builds, now I have to choose combat system as well?

I *think* I prefer turn based but I'm playing PF:KM right now and it's all kinds of awesome in RTwP. And in earlier games that included both I actually chose the RT option… (Arcanum and Fallout Tactics comes to mind).

Too many choices.

This is a great decision as far as giving the game a huge boost in appeal to me.

From what I understand, the system the game is based on was turn based to begin with so I thought it was a bit strange that they went RTWP in the first game. Especially since turn based has experienced a new wave of popularity in rpgs lately and is in a sort of renaissance.

Personally, I think turn based is best for rpg combat and the most fun and just makes sense because D&D was always turn based as originally designed, and is usually the inspiration behind most rpg systems. Anyway, very good move by these developers!

I would love it as I play RTS games, but yeah most the fanbase would go ballistic.:paranoid:

Anyway while I'm being honest I prefer action based RPGs nowadays. I'm sharing this opinion as I played the Original Sin games, and felt the combat quickly got boring.

Though I don't mind playing Arcanum and the old Fallout games. Also their is already a huge glut of turn-based games on the Market for everyone to enjoy already.

In closing it's optional so I cant get to disappointed.:D

You can freely switch between real time and turn based though and see which you like better. I'll probably start out in turn based but if it annoys me too much I can always switch. And I'm sure I'll be switching no matter what for all those pointless filler combats.

Yeah, it's actually great. I'm guessing I'll be using RTwP for the easy encounters and turn based for the harder ones as well.

I kept postponing PF:KM because of reasons I don't need to burden you guys with, but now that I'm finally playing it. Damn. I'm in agreement with PB, best game I've played since…ever?

Yes, definitely the best isometric RPG since BG. People come out of the woodwork, however, when you say it's the best RPG since BG, period :p

I'll even be so blasphemous as to say it's better than BG. Perhaps not in writing or story, but the character building and the combat is much more interesting, and the exploration! When I've replayed BG in latter years I've found leveling pretty boring. NWN2 is a much better comparison but that one was instead way to linear.

Calling it the best RPG ever…yeah, I could get behind that. But that's because it's my favourite type if RPG, it's perfectly understandable if someone else wants to claim for example TW3 or Wizardy 8 deserves that title. Different tastes.

I found it better than BG as well - but it's a difficult (and somewhat unfair) comparison due to huge span of time between their releases.

Since this announcement, this vid product has climbed fast in the expected to be streamed vid product.

Streamers will have to demonstrate the difference in play between the two modes. This is going to be a kind of burden for all those picking up the RTwP mode as they will play it as the UgoIgo difference.

No. Different expectations come with RTwP, one is the relationship between time and space, that is movement.

It ports well because at its core, this vid product has poor RTwP, it is stationary as a UgoIgo combat based product is. Fights are not won through coordinated movement, they are won by appropriate use of spells, skills or whatever, chosen out a huge library.

Players do not play it RTwP, they play it as a UgoIgo thing. That is how it converts well.

Now devs have it right: no audience for RTwP products, so no one cares about its quality. People want UgoIgo, which they get but subordinated to a supposed RTwP design.

I don't think it is. I played BG 1 and 2 when they where released and loved them to death. Since then NO other game has made me feel the same way. I had my hopes sky high for DA;O but that was a total crash and burn (loot and combat felt more like MMO's than classical RPG's, and that is NOT a good thing). PoE was good, even great with expansions, but the mechanics never felt as intuitive as DnD does to me. PoE2 was even better, great game but not magically so. Rose tinted glasses? I figured perhaps no game ever would beat BG in my eyes.

Then I started playing Pathfinder:Kingmaker. The rose tinted glasses broke. THAT's how much I enjoy it. And since I waited it's also completely bug free so far.

Thats actually very close to my feelings. Pathfinder is THE game I was waiting for since BG2.

I’ve got to stop reading pathfinder threads. I’m trying to finish a couple games before starting it and all these positive comments are making it hard. :D

Well I'm certainly glad I waited since I don't have to put up with any of myriad of issues that plagued the game at launch. The game's not going anywhere. And once you start you probably don't want to play anything else, so better to finish those other games first.

Yep, same here. I hope we can freely toggle between them in-game without digging through the options menu.

I played it on launch but I decided to postpone it until it gets sufficiently patched, too. I kind of got burned out from Witcher 3 after 50 hours (not a complaint about the game, more about the length; 30 hours seems perfect for me nowadays), but once I finish it I'll probably go for Kingmaker.

I remember playing Might and Magic in real time for all of the fodder battles but would drop into turn-based for things like Dragons and Titans, etc. While I vastly prefer real-time, it makes sense for party-based games to go with RTwP or turn-based. While I may never play Pathfinder, I think it's a good decision to offer choices and great of them to offer credit where it is due.

I don't think I ever played MM turn based, but not completely sure.

Well, I guess it could stay an indie game… You don't get it sales are Good for all
Turn-based players and RTwp. Some of us play both systems.
You kinda have to… As good RPGs are so few… But I do prefer the better one, you know, RTwp.:)
Anyway, Imagen a die-hard CRGp studio making a game with rockstars GTA budget, you could do RTwp and Turn-based and have money left to throw around.
The only ones that got close were CD Projekt Red and they moved on to shooters… Why? They needed more sales. Sadly classic CRPGS fans are so few and still split between turn vs RT dilemma and hard to please. Just go look at Baldur's Gate 3 forum, it's madness. Don't get me wrong, we need indie devs they make good games but they are so few… More sales equals more games. And more game makes for a greater chance of a masterpiece. Higher chance of new genre standards and so on.

IF stopping time with a key at any point in combat for an unlimited amount of time didn't help you with that endeavor. One could assume that you won't do any better in turn-based mode. Just saying…:)

It's really not the same thing. Usually these RTwP games are played in rounds that are hidden by the real-time movement. Baldur's Gate had 6s rounds if I remember correctly. Pillars of Eternity also had those, but a bit more complicated. Trying to factor in the time of the round, how much time it takes to cast the spell and the enemy movement can be overwhelming and you'll often miss and damage your own party members. With turn-based combat, the enemies don't move on your turn and the time to cast the spell doesn't matter. There are some spells in some games that take two turns to cast, (first turn to prepare, second to cast) but it doesn't matter that much since you can target on the second turn and it's easier to predict the movement of the enemies.

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… :)