Worst Combat System in major RPG
David T. Bilek
major RPG" award. I got this thing a long time ago and didn't play it
because of all the issues. Now I'm trying it with the 1.52 community
patch which was supposed to fix a lot of issues, but the combat is
still asinine beyond belief.
How the hell do you spend so much effort on a game and leave combat in
a state like this?
If you haven't played, here is how combat works in Gothic 3:
You click the left mouse button as fast as possible until the enemy is
dead. Repeat x 10,000. You can kill anything in the game as long as
you have longer reach or can attack faster. The most difficult
opponents are wimpy little things like wolves because they can attack
faster than you and leave you permanently stunned and unable to move
until you are dead, even at high levels.
Ridiculous. I was hoping the community patches would fix the combat.
Why spend so much time lovingly reworking quests and such when such a
fundamental part of the game is completely broken?
-David
Michael Cecil
wrote:
>If you haven't played, here is how combat works in Gothic 3:
>
>You click the left mouse button as fast as possible until the enemy is
>dead. Repeat x 10,000. You can kill anything in the game as long as
>you have longer reach or can attack faster. The most difficult
>opponents are wimpy little things like wolves because they can attack
>faster than you and leave you permanently stunned and unable to move
>until you are dead, even at high levels.
Wrong. It's not a click-fest arcade game. Combat has a rhythm and if you
learn that, you can defeat everything one-on-one. (When a pack of
something attacks all at once, that's a different matter and I found
required the judicial use of a halberd in a sweeping motion.) As you
learn different combat abilities and as your strength and endurance go up
you can change your tactics. Don't forget that there are different uses
for the right and left mouse buttons and that there are combo moves.
But it's definitely not "click the left mouse button as fast as possible".
--
Michael Cecil
http://macecil.googlepages.com/index.htm
Nostromo
-0600, Anno Domini:
No, that'll work, but only if you have craptacular reflexes, no tactics or
reading ability, or your name is johns >8^D
--
Nostromo
johns
27th time through the game. My combat skills are so
good now, I can take on an entire pack of wolves
in Nordmar at the Medium difficulty level, and not
suffer a single bite. I have mastered the side-step
attack, the shield attack, the head strike attack,
and the run and trap attack. I took on the entire
pack of about 30 wolves at the Fire Clan at one
time in the field using the run and trap attack that
none of you can do. I can because I have forward
on mouse2, and I can get behind a wolf. Some of
us can. Some can't. I can. You cannot.
johns
David T. Bilek
wrote:
I'm not sure comparing your 27th time through the game to my 3rd hour
in the game is a useful comparison. Actually, it seems kind of
stupid.
Leaving that aside; combat in a CRPG should not depend on the
player's skill, it should depend on the character's skill. Action
elements in a real RPG are bullshit.
(Which is why turn based combat was superior to real time combat, of
course)
-David
markB
Amen!
-mb
Zank Frappa
> I'm not sure comparing your 27th time through the game to my 3rd
> hour in the game is a useful comparison. Actually, it seems kind of
> stupid.
You mean johns said something stupid? I'm shocked. Stop the internets, I
want to get off.
> Leaving that aside; combat in a CRPG should not depend
> on the player's skill, it should depend on the character's skill.
> Action elements in a real RPG are bullshit.
Isn't that like ordering a pepperoni pizza then complaining that you didn't
get any anchovies in it? If you had read a single review of G3 you would
know it's not a turn based game.
> (Which is why turn based combat was superior to real time combat,
> of course)
If you say so, who are we to dispute that?
Michael Cecil
I don't see a problem with action/rpgs hybrids as long as they don't
misrepresent themselves.
David T. Bilek
Me either. Deus Ex and System Shock were great.
Gothic 3 purports to be an RPG. It is not, it is a FPS with heavy RPG
elements.
-David
David T. Bilek
wrote:
>"David T. Bilek" wrote
>> I'm not sure comparing your 27th time through the game to my 3rd
>> hour in the game is a useful comparison. Actually, it seems kind of
>> stupid.
>
>You mean johns said something stupid? I'm shocked. Stop the internets, I
>want to get off.
>
>> Leaving that aside; combat in a CRPG should not depend
>> on the player's skill, it should depend on the character's skill.
>> Action elements in a real RPG are bullshit.
>
>Isn't that like ordering a pepperoni pizza then complaining that you didn't
>get any anchovies in it? If you had read a single review of G3 you would
>know it's not a turn based game.
I'm not complaining that G3 isn't turn based; I said that turn based
is superior but thats not my gripe. My gripe is that G3 used pretty
much the worst implementation of the 3rd person type of combat I've
ever seen. Much worse than the Elder Scrolls stuff which is awful to
begin with.
>
>> (Which is why turn based combat was superior to real time combat,
>> of course)
>
>If you say so, who are we to dispute that?
>
Dunno. Has there been a better combat system in a true RPG in the
last decade than Fallout 2?
Torment is the best RPG ever but its combat system sucks. Baldurs
Gate 2 was great but its combat system sucks. NWN2 is great but its
combat system is... mediocre. If it had turn based it would probably
be the greatest combat system ever.
-David
Jonathan Ellis
"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
news:rqv3s3hdsbee08c5q...@4ax.com...
Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), Planescape Torment and NWN2 ALL had a turn-based
method of combat, by judicious use of the auto-pause skill. In the case of
BG and PST, of course, there's the fact that you have to manage a party as
well, so you have to micromanage to get the best out of the players. The
main fault I can find in it is that you couldn't queue up non-attack
"actions".
Jonathan.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Gerry Quinn
@gmail.com says...
> Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), Planescape Torment and NWN2 ALL had a turn-based
> method of combat, by judicious use of the auto-pause skill.
By messing with the standard interface, you could slow down the moronic
AI sometimes.
They were real-time games, though their combat was pretty crap due to
poor AI pathfinding etc. Only PS:T was worth playing for me, and even
then the very poor Infinity Engine combat pretty much spoiled it. It
would have made an excellent turn-based game, but it wasn't one.
- Gerry Quinn
Zank Frappa
> johns wrote:
>
>>I just finished Gothic 3 for the
>>27th time through the game.
>
> It's a 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985
> production models. Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway. But
> not on Monday, definitely not on Monday. I'm an excellent driver.
Fifteen minutes to Wapner, yea.
David T. Bilek
<jle3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Dunno. Has there been a better combat system in a true RPG in the
>> last decade than Fallout 2?
>>
>> Torment is the best RPG ever but its combat system sucks. Baldurs
>> Gate 2 was great but its combat system sucks. NWN2 is great but its
>> combat system is... mediocre. If it had turn based it would probably
>> be the greatest combat system ever.
>
>Baldurs Gate (1 and 2), Planescape Torment and NWN2 ALL had a turn-based
>method of combat, by judicious use of the auto-pause skill. In the case of
>BG and PST, of course, there's the fact that you have to manage a party as
>well, so you have to micromanage to get the best out of the players. The
>main fault I can find in it is that you couldn't queue up non-attack
>"actions".
>
No, they weren't turn based even with auto-pause. Pseudo-turn based,
maybe. But D&D was designed with a true turn based system in mind and
even using auto-pause is a kludge that doesn't work very well.
The biggest effect is felt in terms of spells. Area of effect spells
like fireball are made much more difficult to work with in stuff like
NWN2 given the ranges you often encounter stuff at coupled with the
lack of true turn based. In a turn based system your mage can toss a
fireball at stuff and know what is in the area of effect. In NWN2
stuff would keep moving while your spell queued up and lots of times
your guys would be in melee range by the time the spell went off.
Lots of things like that don't work well in real time systems.
Turn based combat is inarguably more tactical than real time hybrids.
-David
Greg Johnson
>I especially hate certain console RPGs' systems where they have
>incorporated "learn different button smashing combos by heart for
>extra damage", stripped straight from console beat'em up games. Aargh!
>
>Playstation's "Xenogears" is one such CRPG that comes to mind.
Nah, Xenogears never actually fell to that level. Sure, there were
combination moves, but they all got listed on your reference screen
after you first discovered them(I think a couple of the strongest ones
remained hidden, though), and since the game was true turn-based
combat, you always had time to look up what the moves were if you
forgot them. Where that game fell down was the occasional fight where
you had to make exactly the right moves in the right sequence or
automatically lose, which happened in 2 or 3 of the gear battles.
CoinSpin
"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2ea4s39rftbo2abgn...@4ax.com...
It's funny, but this type of argument always rather amused me... You want
turn based so you can basically cheat the laws of physics and ignore the
natural tendencies of combative groups to move towards each other, so you
can throw a fireball and not have backlash that would hurt your party...
Sorry, to me the turn based system is the farthest from a realistic tactical
method that you can get, because any good strategist will be able to plan
and compensate for enemy movements, your party movements, etc. In my mind,
if I'm rating "role playing" games, the ones that win are the ones that make
me feel like I'm in the role, not sitting back and planning my strategy at
leisure with no pressure or urgency - if I want that kind of game, I'll play
chess or Risk. I'm sure things would be different if life had a pause
button you could hit whenever you needed to plan your next move.
CoinSpin
Mike S.
wrote:
>Torment is the best RPG ever but its combat system sucks. Baldurs
>Gate 2 was great but its combat system sucks. NWN2 is great but its
>combat system is... mediocre. If it had turn based it would probably
>be the greatest combat system ever.
Do you know how long a game of Baldur's Gate takes? Do you know how
much longer it would take if you had to fight every gibberling, gnoll,
hobgoblin, xvart and bloody freaking kobold in turn based mode? I
would be driven insane with boredom.
Wolfing
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:08:25 -0600, Michael Cecil <mace...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wrong. It's not a click-fest arcade game. Combat has a rhythm and if you
> >learn that, you can defeat everything one-on-one.
>
> didn't rely of player's arcade action gaming skills because IMHO that
> pretty much destroys the whole point of CRPG for me.
>
> My character's characteristics should govern how (well) he will handle
> different situations in the game (including combat), not how well I am
> timing my movements.
>
> With my limited experience, I have the fondest memories of the
> Betrayal at Krondor combat system. Easy to learn and execute,
> completely turn-based, and little tactical spice in it. Your team's
> characteristics were still the most important factor in surviving the
> battles.
>
> Combat systems in e.g. Ultima 7 and Baldur's Gate are "messy" in
> comparison, and nowadays it feels RPGs are pretty much always
> action-RPGs with action combat system. Maybe that is the price to pay
> for going mainstream.
>
> I especially hate certain console RPGs' systems where they have
> incorporated "learn different button smashing combos by heart for
> extra damage", stripped straight from console beat'em up games. Aargh!
>
> Playstation's "Xenogears" is one such CRPG that comes to mind.
I'm with you man. I don't know why they call 'RPG' a game where you as
a player are the main deciding factor to see if an action succeeds or
fails. As a player you should decide what actions to take, and the
character's and opponent's stats and gear (and luck) should decide the
outcome.
Of course, you could argue that if your character has a high INT score
then he should be able to figure out things in the game better than
you as a player, but then we'd get to pretty much say the game should
play by itself :)
Jonathan Ellis
"David T. Bilek" <david...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2ea4s39rftbo2abgn...@4ax.com...
Oddly enough, by learning the movement speeds and the size of the area
effect, I can ALWAYS fire fireballs effectively in BG1 and BG2. The trick is
landing them at the right place: you don't target the enemy, you target the
*area*. And then manually control your party so as to not enter that area
until after the spell has been cast, while the enemy haven't yet had time to
get out of it.
I've gotten really good at placing fireballs (and other area-effect spells)
in BG1 and BG2, so that the edge of the fireball is JUST in front of your
party's front line fighters - the enemy rushing towards it, gets caught by
the edge of the fireball, your own fighters standing still and waiting for
the enemy to approach aren't even singed. And the enemy's archers and
spellcasters, at the back, are caught right in the middle of it becuase
they're standing still and casting spells.
As far as I'm concerned that's a GOOD system. It allows for player skill,
but without the requirement for that skill having to be real-time-based.
Maybe you're just not good enough at handling real turn-based combat
micromanagement, and just want a "fire-and-forget" combat that will be "over
in X rounds with the spellcasters automatically knowing to cast spells that
don't hurt the party without you having to micromanage"?
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:51:35 +1100, Greg Johnson <greg...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:54:15 GMT, riku <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I especially hate certain console RPGs' systems where they have
>>>incorporated "learn different button smashing combos by heart for
>>>extra damage", stripped straight from console beat'em up games. Aargh!
>>>
>>>Playstation's "Xenogears" is one such CRPG that comes to mind.
>>
>>Nah, Xenogears never actually fell to that level. Sure, there were
>>combination moves, but they all got listed on your reference screen
>>after you first discovered them(I think a couple of the strongest ones
>
>semi-turn based combat system as in some Final Fantasy games, where
>you had only certain amount of time to do your stuff on your turn?
You might be thinking of the Shadow Hearts series. There was a rotary
timer running in the corner of the screen, and you could elect to have
your selected action resolved in a normal dice-roll manner. If you made
your menu selection within a certain section of the timer, you would get
an extra bonus (like critical damage, bonus healing points or whatever.)
Oblivion is guilty of this sort of thing too, by giving you the option of
hitting movement buttons while you're swinging your weapon. Each
combination would make you perform a different spinning act of acrobatics,
and as I recall the only useful one was the full 360 turn that could
disarm a humanoid opponent.
>Anyway, I do not understand why I was supposed to remember the
>different "combo moves" even if they were listed somewhere. Why
>couldn't I simply select the "combo move" I had learnt from a menu, or
>something? Having to do the combo felt like an irritating mini-game
>inside enemy encounters.
In the case of Morrowind and KOTOR, the complaint was that you didn't do
very much during combat. Making fights more interactive and less
procedural was supposed to address those concerns without removing a CRPG
too far from its pen-and-paper roots. As you've may have already noticed
in their sequels, developers don't always get that right.
-KKC, who wishes DMOMM:Elements had a third-person view.
--
-- "Arabs are the new Asians, at least in media. Stereotypes gave way to
deeper roles over 40 years of assimilation into western culture. Bruce Lee
kicks ass, Jackie Chan gets laughs, B.D. Wong is a top. Arabs have | kendrick
had Klinger and Monk. Clearly, they have some catching up to do." | @io.com
WDS
> I'd like to nominate "Gothic 3" for the "Worst Combat System in a
> major RPG" award. I got this thing a long time ago and didn't play it
> because of all the issues. Now I'm trying it with the 1.52 community
> patch which was supposed to fix a lot of issues, but the combat is
> still asinine beyond belief.
>
> How the hell do you spend so much effort on a game and leave combat in
> a state like this?
It's very odd because combat in Gothic 2 was difficult but I liked it
a hundred times (at LEAST) better. This was one of the things that
made me abandon it.
Gerry Quinn
coin^spam^sp...@hotmail.com says...
> | Turn based combat is inarguably more tactical than real time hybrids.
> |
>
> It's funny, but this type of argument always rather amused me... You want
> turn based so you can basically cheat the laws of physics and ignore the
> natural tendencies of combative groups to move towards each other, so you
> can throw a fireball and not have backlash that would hurt your party...
> Sorry, to me the turn based system is the farthest from a realistic tactical
> method that you can get, because any good strategist will be able to plan
> and compensate for enemy movements, your party movements, etc.
He didn't say they were realistically tactical. He said they are *more*
tactical. Chess is very unrealistic, but much more tactical than real
combat.
> In my mind,
> if I'm rating "role playing" games, the ones that win are the ones that make
> me feel like I'm in the role, not sitting back and planning my strategy at
> leisure with no pressure or urgency - if I want that kind of game, I'll play
> chess or Risk. I'm sure things would be different if life had a pause
> button you could hit whenever you needed to plan your next move.
There's nothing wrong with that attitude at all - but the quality you
are enjoying in the games you prefer is not best described as 'tactics'.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
ri...@none.invalid.com says...
> the generic fights which you couldn't lose even if you wanted.
Or it could leave out the irrelevant trash mobs, or make them run away
if your characters were too strong, or whatever.
- Gerry Quinn
David T. Bilek
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:42:02 GMT, David T. Bilek <david...@att.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Turn based combat is inarguably more tactical than real time hybrids.
>
>fights end. Your character's abilities should decide that, with some
>random luck thrown in. That would be the most "RPGish" combat system,
>not relying at all to either your arcade action reflex skills, nor
>your tactical/strategy table top wargaming prowess.
Your characters stats should probably influence what options are
available to you, yes, but I'm willing to let the player make
decisions. Otherwise its not really a game, its a simulation.
Oddly enough the game that handled this really well wasn't an RPG at
all, it was a tactical squad game; Jagged Alliance. Things like
Fidel getting fixated on anybody he shot at to the point where you
couldn't order him to take cover or anything until his current target
was killed.
Fidel: Not now, I BUSY!
-David
David T. Bilek
wrote:
Can I have an amen?
AMEN!
-David
David T. Bilek
No, you make combat less ubiquitous to compensate. Or you allow the
turn based mode to be turned off for weaker enemies. I'm wary of the
second approach, though, as it usually involved making a real time
game that then paste a slapdash quasi-turn-based system directly on
top of.
Personally, I would consider making combat less common and each battle
much more meaningful to be a net win.
-David
David T. Bilek
You're making the assumption that I'm not good at the BG type combat
system, which is an error.
I can be good at something and still dislike it.
-David
Mike S.
wrote:
>Personally, I would consider making combat less common and each battle
>much more meaningful to be a net win.
On this point, I am with you. Not only would I like fewer but more
meaningful battles, but I would then prefer turn based combat as well.
But as BG currently is, it is probably using the best system for that
game. We'll just agree to disagree on this point.
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
>>I don't see a problem with action/rpgs hybrids as long as they don't
>>misrepresent themselves.
>
>Me either. Deus Ex and System Shock were great.
>
>Gothic 3 purports to be an RPG. It is not, it is a FPS with heavy RPG
>elements.
So by the same token, neither is VTMB nor Oblivion a crpg, or almost any
other rpg to be released in the past 5 years. Nice little self-consistent
delusion you have going there. I guess what you're really saying is "if I
can't handle the pace or enjoy a crpg then it's not a roleplaying game".
"Roleplaying" has nothing to do with real-time, turn-based, pausable
real-time or any other game execution mode you care to mention. If you don't
understand that innately, then there's no explaining it to you. Enjoy
playing old 'crpgs' only until the day you die! ;-p
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
>Lots of things like that don't work well in real time systems.
Like...real life & the real world?
>Turn based combat is inarguably more tactical than real time hybrids.
Like...every battle in all of history wasn't? You really need to get away
from your hex-grids & the dungeons you play them in Dave.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
GMT, Anno Domini:
>You're making the assumption that I'm not good at the BG type combat
>system, which is an error.
>
>I can be good at something and still dislike it.
For how long? As long as this pointless thread or longer?
Don't bother.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>> It could have a similar auto-combat mode as Betrayal at Krondor for
>> the generic fights which you couldn't lose even if you wanted.
>
>Or it could leave out the irrelevant trash mobs, or make them run away
>if your characters were too strong, or whatever.
But you're missing the point: turn-based dinosaur rpgs are designed to wear
you down with their repetitive boredom. That's how you get to roleplay real
life in them. :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 01:14:31 -0800 (PST), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, johns
>wrote:
>
>>I just finished Gothic 3 for the
>>27th time through the game.
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095953/
>
>It's a 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985 production
>models. Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely
>not on Monday. I'm an excellent driver.
ROFLMFAO! Nail, head, 15000PSI hydraulic impact hammer. :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
10:19:48 -0600, Anno Domini:
>You might be thinking of the Shadow Hearts series. There was a rotary
>timer running in the corner of the screen, and you could elect to have
>your selected action resolved in a normal dice-roll manner. If you made
>your menu selection within a certain section of the timer, you would get
>an extra bonus (like critical damage, bonus healing points or whatever.)
>
>Oblivion is guilty of this sort of thing too, by giving you the option of
>hitting movement buttons while you're swinging your weapon. Each
>combination would make you perform a different spinning act of acrobatics,
>and as I recall the only useful one was the full 360 turn that could
>disarm a humanoid opponent.
The Witcher is the best at this I've seen. It implements a simple timed
extra click (with plenty of leeway) to execute one of many special moves
that the _character_ learns along the way. This way you feel like you as a
player are contributing somewhat to the action, whereas in reality it's all
down to Geralt's skills. Elegant, simple, not too consolish.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
(PST), Anno Domini:
>I'm with you man. I don't know why they call 'RPG' a game where you as
>a player are the main deciding factor to see if an action succeeds or
>fails. As a player you should decide what actions to take, and the
>character's and opponent's stats and gear (and luck) should decide the
>outcome.
Clicking a mouse button or a key or three isn't really the same as swinging
a sword while parrying against 3 opponents, using a shield & doing legwork &
evasive maneuvers over chairs, tables & other obstacles...we do all
understand that, errr...right? :-/
>Of course, you could argue that if your character has a high INT score
>then he should be able to figure out things in the game better than
>you as a player, but then we'd get to pretty much say the game should
>play by itself :)
And there you have it...
Though PST & FO1/2 implemented INT (& WIS) well through dialogue choices -
have we seen anything similar since really?
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:48:44 -0800, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, David T.
>Bilek wrote:
>
>>I'd like to nominate "Gothic 3" for the "Worst Combat System in a
>>major RPG" award.
>
>I'll see your G3 and raise you Ultima IX. Jesus crap that "combat system"
>sucked.
>
>Mind you, when I started playing G3, it reminded me of U9 quite a bit, but it
>wasn't nearly as badly designed.
Neither of you have tried "Hard To Be A God" yet then I take it? <EG>
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:25:02 +1100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Nostromo
>wrote:
>But you're missing the point: computer-based dinosaur rpgs are designed to wear
>you down with their repetitive boredom.
>
>There. Fixed it for you. :^P
Actually, I meant: turn-based dinosaur computer rpgs. :)
--
Nostromo
Greg Johnson
>Maybe I should replay it, but I seem to remember it has a similar
>semi-turn based combat system as in some Final Fantasy games, where
>you had only certain amount of time to do your stuff on your turn?
No, it was true turn-based, no timer. There was a time bar, but it
only indicated who's going to move next, as it remained static while
you were deciding what to do with your turn.
>Anyway, I do not understand why I was supposed to remember the
>different "combo moves" even if they were listed somewhere. Why
>couldn't I simply select the "combo move" I had learnt from a menu, or
>something? Having to do the combo felt like an irritating mini-game
>inside enemy encounters.
The game did show you the skills that could be performed with the next
couple of moves, but only for two moves or less, so the longer ones
had to be planned. The whole gimmick of this system(which was also
used by the Legaia games) is that the ending moves of one skill could
overlap with the beginning moves of another, allowing you to perform
more attacks than your number of moves would imply. Of course, if it
was automated, you'd lose the player's involvement in planning, which
appears to be the whole point of this combat system.
Gerry Quinn
ri...@none.invalid.com says...
> One thing I like about newer RPGs: it doesn't take you half an hour
> just to start the game as you are trying to figure out what kind of
> starting party you should have, carefully selecting optimal races for
> each class, re-rolling dices a few dozen times to get highest possible
> stats for each team member etc.
>
> I remember sometimes even enjoying that careful planning of my team,
> but nowadays I rather use some pre-designed set of characters.
>
> Dungeon Master had pretty good system: the characters were set, but
> you selected which ones you wanted in your party.
You also had the option to 'restart' each character, losing their
current skills, and gaining a small amount of added potential over time.
Of course, most players probably went for the latter. The characters
still had some individuality, though.
I like that system too. Modern games have done away with rolls for
attributes for the most part too - either they let you swap them freely,
or they just set them at the start.
I'd like to see some games with 'hidden' attributes - maybe it is random
(set by a hidden seed at the start) whether your character will discover
at L10 that he has an aptitude for fire magic, lockpicking or whatever.
But I'm not convinced most players would go for that.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
david...@att.net says...
In Heroes of Might and Magic (a strategy game with some RPG overtones),
if you encounter a 'neutral' army much weaker than yours, you will just
get an option: "These weak creatures flee before you. Ignore / Pursue".
If you ignore them, you get 50% of the experience you'd have got from a
fight. And you don't waste time or risk losing troops.
It's still possible to micromanage, typically by fighting melee types
and ignoring shooters and casters, who will generally take some of your
forces down with them. But basically it avoids time-wasting turn-based
fights very effectively - you only either fights that matter.
- Gerry Quinn
WDS
> I'd like to see some games with 'hidden' attributes - maybe it is random
> (set by a hidden seed at the start) whether your character will discover
> at L10 that he has an aptitude for fire magic, lockpicking or whatever.
> But I'm not convinced most players would go for that.
I personally would hate that. XCom (yeah, not an RPG, but...) had
something like that. You could play the game carefully developing
your team then partway through you discover psionics and find that the
best guys on your current team are psionic schmucks who you wouldn't
have bothered with if you had only known. It was very annoying.
Backspace
>
> So by the same token, neither is VTMB nor Oblivion a crpg, or almost any
> other rpg to be released in the past 5 years. Nice little self-consistent
> delusion you have going there. I guess what you're really saying is "if I
> can't handle the pace or enjoy a crpg then it's not a roleplaying game".
> "Roleplaying" has nothing to do with real-time, turn-based, pausable
> real-time or any other game execution mode you care to mention. If you don't
> understand that innately, then there's no explaining it to you. Enjoy
> playing old 'crpgs' only until the day you die! ;-p
>
GODS: Lands of Infinity has turn based combat and is not an old game. I
would rather play pure stats based combat RPG's too but they no longer
give us that option because they want to appeal more to the younger
crowd. Lands of Infinity is not a great RPG with cutting edge graphics
but at least it has good old turn based combat and is why I bought it.
The lead character is hot too. ;)
Backspace
>Baldurs
> Gate 2 was great but its combat system sucks.
Can't agree with that comment. It has pauseable and customizable RT
combat so it plays almost like turn based.
Backspace
> It's funny, but this type of argument always rather amused me... You want
> turn based so you can basically cheat the laws of physics and ignore the
> natural tendencies of combative groups to move towards each other, so you
> can throw a fireball and not have backlash that would hurt your party...
> Sorry, to me the turn based system is the farthest from a realistic tactical
> method that you can get, because any good strategist will be able to plan
> and compensate for enemy movements, your party movements, etc. In my mind,
> if I'm rating "role playing" games, the ones that win are the ones that make
> me feel like I'm in the role, not sitting back and planning my strategy at
> leisure with no pressure or urgency - if I want that kind of game, I'll play
> chess or Risk. I'm sure things would be different if life had a pause
> button you could hit whenever you needed to plan your next move.
>
> CoinSpin
>
>
The "G" in RPG stands for game so why are you even bringing up what is
more realistic? What's at issue here is which system is more
interesting and intellectually stimulating in an RPG. For hardcore RPG's
they mostly will choose turn based combat every time, if they had the
choice.
CoinSpin
"Backspace" <m...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:97Ywj.6184$w94.1242@pd7urf2no...
I brought it up because the "RP" in RPG stands for "Role Playing" which some
find is easier when it's a more immersive (and real time) environment. Turn
based is great for strategic RPGs, and believe me I LOVE those types of
games - I would rather play a turn-based strategy game than an RTS any day,
some of those just get a bit too hectic
Anyhow, it's just another point of view. The turn based system is not the
be-all, end-all of RPG, it's just one style. And one that I happen to enjoy
as well.. But I rather found that games like Morrowind or Dark Messiah made
actually getting into the role more fun. Could harken back to my origins in
computer RPGs, with Dungeon Master being my all-time favorite. Hey, even
System Shock was an RPG in some fashion. There's just such a wide variety
of styles that can be either classified as RPG or at least RPG-ish these
days.
And I'll be honest, I had in my mind a post farther up the stream of the
topic that basically said "anything not turn-based sucks ass and is not an
RPG" so my internal reaction to that was still fresh in my head when I
posted... Guess that's what happens when you read 50 posts at once, then
start throwing your 2 cents in - can be a jumbled mess in the old gray
matter :)
CoinSpin
CoinSpin
"riku" <ri...@none.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4lj7s3lads5p3g5q9...@4ax.com...
| just to start the game as you are trying to figure out what kind of
| starting party you should have, carefully selecting optimal races for
| each class, re-rolling dices a few dozen times to get highest possible
| stats for each team member etc.
|
| I remember sometimes even enjoying that careful planning of my team,
| but nowadays I rather use some pre-designed set of characters.
|
| Dungeon Master had pretty good system: the characters were set, but
| you selected which ones you wanted in your party.
|
That was one of my favorite things about DM as well (that and the spell
system). I loved being able to run around the Hall of Champions and pick
the characters that best fit the style of play I wished to use. I balanced
out teams sometimes with fighters in front, other times I'd try it will all
mages and clerics, just to see how it differed.
And I've seen a bit of a resurgence of this type of thing recently...
Played several games in the last few months where you meet up with
characters that you can choose to have tag along, or leave behind... At
least it gives you a little flexibility in rounding out a party (or
replacing useless members along the way).
CoinSpin
Justisaur
> I'd like to nominate "Gothic 3" for the "Worst Combat System in a
> because of all the issues. Now I'm trying it with the 1.52 community
> patch which was supposed to fix a lot of issues, but the combat is
> still asinine beyond belief.
>
> How the hell do you spend so much effort on a game and leave combat in
> a state like this?
>
> If you haven't played, here is how combat works in Gothic 3:
Haven't played it, but my nomination for worst combat system in a CRPG
is still Planescape: Torment.
- Justisaur
Darin Johnson
> Not that it makes the game bad, necessarily. Cross-genre games are
> many times more interesting than fixated genre-games.
True, they're interesting. But I do sort of miss the idea of
my character being better than I am and doesn't rely on me
being faster or smarter or twitchier. I do like Oblivion and
Gothic though, even though they both depend heavily on
the players' own stats. It'd just be nice now and then for a
good old fashioned RPG that didn't need mouse skills.
When it annoys me is when such an RPG demands too
much of me that I can't succeed. This isn't as common
with fantasy games that rely on swords more than guns
so that fast accurate aiming isn't needed. Just mash the
swing button with your eyes closed and you often do ok.
On the other hand, in Gothic I could do things that my
character had no hope of surviving based on his stats,
but because I figured out the rythm of swings. Big troll
that can kill me in one hit of his club? No problem, I only
need just enough points in sword to keep it swinging and
back him up to a wall.
I found sword swinging in Oblivion a lot harder in many cases.
One on one it's a piece of cake. But with friends or allies
nearby I found it too difficult to not hurt them worse than the
enemy; even with spells. And that's with maxed out blade skill.
At those points I just summoned something and stood back.
But 4 NPC guards can all gang up on a creature with swords
swinging and never hit each other.
--
Darin Johnson
Justisaur
> "David T. Bilek" <davidbi...@att.net> wrote in messagenews:2ea4s39rftbo2abgn...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:50:13 -0000, "Jonathan Ellis"
> > <jle30...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>"David T. Bilek" <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>> last decade than Fallout 2?
>
> >>> Torment is the best RPG ever but its combat system sucks. Baldurs
> >>> Gate 2 was great but its combat system sucks. NWN2 is great but its
> >>> combat system is... mediocre. If it had turn based it would probably
> >>> be the greatest combat system ever.
>
> >>method of combat, by judicious use of the auto-pause skill. In the case of
> >>BG and PST, of course, there's the fact that you have to manage a party as
> >>well, so you have to micromanage to get the best out of the players. The
> >>main fault I can find in it is that you couldn't queue up non-attack
> >>"actions".
Here we go again. I've beaten this to death over the years, but the
problem from my point of view with BG, NWN, etc. is it's supposed to
be AD&D. Magic-Users don't necessarily target their spells at the
beginning of casting. So they might be casting that fireball spell
and at the end they choose where to place it so it hits the right
area. The effects are certainly that. Yet in BG, NWN, etc. you are
forced to choose your target at the beginning of the spell, then cast
it for some arbitrary amount of time the programmers came up with,
waiting. Then your spell goes off in what is a really bad place.
This is obviously *not* the effect in PNP or turn-based AD&D so they
have the implementation totally wrong.
Unless you the player happen to be really good at placing one of your
character's spells. This isn't something that should be handled by
*twitch* it should be something the character can do.
Of course this issue is not something that can be handled well in a
multi-character real-time game, because they would have to pause the
game to have you go back to your magic-user and target the spell at
that time, or have a good enough AI to place it properly.
- Justisaur
David T. Bilek
Actually, I don't see why this isn't a good solution. You want to
make the D&D combat real-time? Fine. Let the player tell the caster
to queue up a fireball and have the game auto-pause when casting is
complete and let me pick a target at that time, such that the fireball
casts instanly once I pick a target.
There is no reason to make the player pick the target *before* casting
rather than after.
-David
Wolfing
> |
> |
>
> turn based so you can basically cheat the laws of physics and ignore the
> natural tendencies of combative groups to move towards each other, so you
> can throw a fireball and not have backlash that would hurt your party...
> Sorry, to me the turn based system is the farthest from a realistic tactical
> method that you can get, because any good strategist will be able to plan
> and compensate for enemy movements, your party movements, etc. In my mind,
> if I'm rating "role playing" games, the ones that win are the ones that make
> me feel like I'm in the role, not sitting back and planning my strategy at
> leisure with no pressure or urgency - if I want that kind of game, I'll play
> chess or Risk. I'm sure things would be different if life had a pause
> button you could hit whenever you needed to plan your next move.
>
> CoinSpin
There's a difference between 3rd person vs. 1st person view and action
vs. turn based, although most turn-based games are 3rd person.
Funny thing is, if you asked me a few years ago which was the best RPG
I'd ever played, I woudln't have said BG or PS:T. I would have said
Everquest. It was the first game in which I could really say I was
roleplaying. Where every action my character made was what he would
have done. Where he would talk to people and people would respond in
non 'canned' responses. Of course, I'm talking EQ in its beginnings,
when most players were actually role-players, before guilds and raids
started destroying the whole immersion thing. It was in first person
view, and it wasn't turn based, but it wasn't twitchy either, all
actions were decided by stats.
I don't think I'll ever really enjoy playing a MMO, but not because of
the genre per se, but because of the people playing them nowadays,
compared to the type of people that played them when the genre was in
its infancy.
Mike S.
wrote:
>In Heroes of Might and Magic (a strategy game with some RPG overtones),
>if you encounter a 'neutral' army much weaker than yours, you will just
>get an option: "These weak creatures flee before you. Ignore / Pursue".
Using a system similar to HoMM is a good idea. I like it better then
auto combat anyway. It would work best in a turn based RPG that has a
lot of low level random encounters.
David T. Bilek
>
>There's a difference between 3rd person vs. 1st person view and action
>vs. turn based, although most turn-based games are 3rd person.
>Funny thing is, if you asked me a few years ago which was the best RPG
>I'd ever played, I woudln't have said BG or PS:T. I would have said
>Everquest. It was the first game in which I could really say I was
>roleplaying. Where every action my character made was what he would
>have done. Where he would talk to people and people would respond in
>non 'canned' responses. Of course, I'm talking EQ in its beginnings,
>when most players were actually role-players, before guilds and raids
>started destroying the whole immersion thing. It was in first person
>view, and it wasn't turn based, but it wasn't twitchy either, all
>actions were decided by stats.
>I don't think I'll ever really enjoy playing a MMO, but not because of
>the genre per se, but because of the people playing them nowadays,
>compared to the type of people that played them when the genre was in
>its infancy.
I agree with you almost completely but I'd like to point out that
Everquest isn't even close to being in the infancy of multiplayer
online RPGs. Everquest isn't even 10 years old yet.
By this standard the best RPG ever is Gemstone IV circa 1990. You'll
never see that sort of roleplaying again.
-David
Backspace
> I brought it up because the "RP" in RPG stands for "Role Playing" which some
> find is easier when it's a more immersive (and real time) environment. Turn
> based is great for strategic RPGs, and believe me I LOVE those types of
> games - I would rather play a turn-based strategy game than an RTS any day,
> some of those just get a bit too hectic
I like Oblivion too but I think I would like it more if it had a pure
stats turn based combat system. Oblivion gets really choppy frame rates
when entering a RT battle with lots of enemies which can make the combat
quite frustrating at times. I'm open to both combat systems but no one
is making RPG's with turn based combat so it is not fair to us that like
combat to be turned based. Someone mentioned Jagged Alliance 2 combat
system, now that would make a great combat system in an RPG and I would
buy it in a heart beat.
CoinSpin
"Backspace" <m...@here.invalid> wrote in message
Here here! I loved the combat system in Jagged Alliance 2, and I agree it
would make a seriously effective system for a party based RPG.
CoinSpin
Gerry Quinn
72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Bi...@seurer.net says...
Well, that is a strategy game, and knowing that there is a chance of
that is part of the strategy. Personally I quite like strategy games
with a lot of random elements that you have to control for.
It's interesting in an RPG context, IMO - in theory it is a good thing
(after all it puts the character in charge, not the player). It hurts
the minmaxing tactical player. And I think there's a good bit of the
latter even in those who say they are not...
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com>, da...@usa.net says...
> On Feb 26, 12:27 am, riku <r...@none.invalid.com> wrote:
> > Not that it makes the game bad, necessarily. Cross-genre games are
> > many times more interesting than fixated genre-games.
>
> True, they're interesting. But I do sort of miss the idea of
> my character being better than I am and doesn't rely on me
> being faster or smarter or twitchier. I do like Oblivion and
> Gothic though, even though they both depend heavily on
> the players' own stats. It'd just be nice now and then for a
> good old fashioned RPG that didn't need mouse skills.
>
> When it annoys me is when such an RPG demands too
> much of me that I can't succeed. This isn't as common
> with fantasy games that rely on swords more than guns
> so that fast accurate aiming isn't needed. Just mash the
> swing button with your eyes closed and you often do ok.
The MMORPG is even more slow-paced than the single-player CRPG - even if
you are quite slow-fingered you can still perform pretty well in PvE on
these games. Maybe you wouldn't be top raider material, but you'd be
okay.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
1f6672...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, just...@gmail.com says...
> Here we go again. I've beaten this to death over the years, but the
> problem from my point of view with BG, NWN, etc. is it's supposed to
> be AD&D. Magic-Users don't necessarily target their spells at the
> beginning of casting. So they might be casting that fireball spell
> and at the end they choose where to place it so it hits the right
> area. The effects are certainly that. Yet in BG, NWN, etc. you are
> forced to choose your target at the beginning of the spell, then cast
> it for some arbitrary amount of time the programmers came up with,
> waiting. Then your spell goes off in what is a really bad place.
> This is obviously *not* the effect in PNP or turn-based AD&D so they
> have the implementation totally wrong.
>
> Unless you the player happen to be really good at placing one of your
> character's spells. This isn't something that should be handled by
> *twitch* it should be something the character can do.
>
> Of course this issue is not something that can be handled well in a
> multi-character real-time game, because they would have to pause the
> game to have you go back to your magic-user and target the spell at
> that time, or have a good enough AI to place it properly.
Well, it works okay in WoW - many AOE (area of effect) spells either
take several seconds to cast, or operate over a period, and they are
useful not only against stupid monsters but also in PvP.
I guess the difference is that in WoW you have alternative spells for
moving targets - firebolts, for example, take several seconds to cast,
but will go to the target so long as it is still in range and line of
sight.
This seems to me to be working as it should - AOE powerful but
situational. Maybe BG etc. were lacking in the firebolt category, or
just unbalanced without AOE?
- Gerry Quinn
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <db88f1a2-b8cd-4356-ba47-68f6fe0e3f5f@
>72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com>, Bi...@seurer.net says...
>> On Feb 26, 8:28 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>> > I'd like to see some games with 'hidden' attributes - maybe it is random
>> > (set by a hidden seed at the start) whether your character will discover
>> > at L10 that he has an aptitude for fire magic, lockpicking or whatever.
>> > But I'm not convinced most players would go for that.
>>
>> I personally would hate that. XCom (yeah, not an RPG, but...) had
>> something like that. You could play the game carefully developing
>> your team then partway through you discover psionics and find that the
>> best guys on your current team are psionic schmucks who you wouldn't
>> have bothered with if you had only known. It was very annoying.
>It's interesting in an RPG context, IMO - in theory it is a good thing
>(after all it puts the character in charge, not the player). It hurts
>the minmaxing tactical player. And I think there's a good bit of the
>latter even in those who say they are not...
What if you split the difference then? Rather than it being a wholly
hidden attribute, you make it an undocumented but repeatable quality. A
character born in a specific month in a specific country finds out at
level 15 that he can turn milk into cheese by staring at it and wishing
really hard, but this combination is never explicitly stated in the lore
or in the manual. Given how much the best RPGs are supposed to be
replayed, this would be the sort of functional 'easter egg' that would
reward devoted fans (including stat hounds) without taking anything away
from other players.
-KKC, suffering from unknown acronym overload at work.
--
-- "Arabs are the new Asians, at least in media. Stereotypes gave way to
deeper roles over 40 years of assimilation into western culture. Bruce Lee
kicks ass, Jackie Chan gets laughs, B.D. Wong is a top. Arabs have | kendrick
had Klinger and Monk. Clearly, they have some catching up to do." | @io.com
markB
>
> -KKC, suffering from unknown acronym overload at work.
I hear ya. Dealing with UAO is the worst...
-mb
Justisaur
> In article <7c3ac377-cd4c-4570-9ad3-
> 1f6672ca5...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, justis...@gmail.com says...
I believe they don't have friendly fire at all, which is another way
of taking care of it. You can't hurt your allies with fireballs, so
it doesn't matter if they happen to be in the area. I know that's the
way EQ works. Doesn't make any sense though. I summon a fiery
inferno, but it doesn't hurt anyone but who I want, just because.
- Justisaur
Justisaur
I don't think any RT game designers are going to go for that because
it breaks the RT during that pause. I'd be happy with that, but It
just isn't going to happen.
- Justisaur
Ross Ridge
>I believe they don't have friendly fire at all, which is another way
>of taking care of it. You can't hurt your allies with fireballs, so
>it doesn't matter if they happen to be in the area. I know that's the
>way EQ works. Doesn't make any sense though. I summon a fiery
>inferno, but it doesn't hurt anyone but who I want, just because.
There's a very good reason why MMORPG's don't have friendly fire.
It would be a major source of greifing. Even accidental friendly fire
incidents would cause a huge amount of infighting in groups.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
Ross Ridge
>What if you split the difference then? Rather than it being a wholly
>hidden attribute, you make it an undocumented but repeatable quality. A
>character born in a specific month in a specific country finds out at
>level 15 that he can turn milk into cheese by staring at it and wishing
>really hard, but this combination is never explicitly stated in the lore
>or in the manual. Given how much the best RPGs are supposed to be
>replayed, this would be the sort of functional 'easter egg' that would
>reward devoted fans (including stat hounds) without taking anything away
>from other players.
It would mostly reward people who consult some online walkthrough to find
out which birthdays are the best. These days, developers can't really
put secrets like this in a game, and assume that they will remain secret
for the majority of their players.
On the other hand, I never had much problem with the hidden psi stats in
X-Com. I just ended up splitting up my men into psi and non-psi teams.
Also, a fair number of poor psi soldiers get darwnized out by the time
you start finding out their psi stats.
David T. Bilek
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 26, 12:27 pm, David T. Bilek <davidbi...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:04:53 -0800 (PST), Justisaur
>>
>>
>> make the D&D combat real-time? Fine. Let the player tell the caster
>> to queue up a fireball and have the game auto-pause when casting is
>> complete and let me pick a target at that time, such that the fireball
>> casts instanly once I pick a target.
>>
>> There is no reason to make the player pick the target *before* casting
>> rather than after.
>
>I don't think any RT game designers are going to go for that because
>it breaks the RT during that pause. I'd be happy with that, but It
>just isn't going to happen.
>
Well, that's part of my point as to the inferiority of forcing a
real-time system on to combat mechanics that work better as
turn-based. Going real-time forces you to either severely limit the
tactical options available to a player or to make them work in
non-optimal ways.
Look at a combat system like in the game "Knights of Legend". Yeah,
it sucked that you couldn't save during combat (BAD idea when the
combats can be two hours long) but the tactical options were far
superior - in a game released almost 20 years ago! - to modern
real-time combat systems.
How do you make a real time system that allows you to thrust / swing /
chop either low / medium / high (with various advantages and
disadvantages depending on the monster you are attacking) with
corresponding defensive options? The answer is; you don't. Instead
you just let the player target an enemy and have the character whack
away at the target until one of them is dead. No tactical options
apart from target selection and perhaps choice of weapon.
That's like whiffle ball compared to real baseball.
-David
Kendrick Kerwin Chua
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Kendrick Kerwin Chua <kend...@nospam.io> wrote:
>>What if you split the difference then? Rather than it being a wholly
>>hidden attribute, you make it an undocumented but repeatable quality. A
>>character born in a specific month in a specific country finds out at
>>level 15 that he can turn milk into cheese by staring at it and wishing
>It would mostly reward people who consult some online walkthrough to find
>out which birthdays are the best. These days, developers can't really
>put secrets like this in a game, and assume that they will remain secret
>for the majority of their players.
It would have to be something that isn't easily quantifiable, or that you
couldn't line up in a big chart. Born on a particular day in a particular
country, standing in a church at high noon with a wooden shield equipped
on the wrong arm... I suppose at that point it ceases to be a repeatable
quality then. :)
-KKC, doing fun things with XML.
Gerry Quinn
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, just...@gmail.com says...
You're right, it doesn't. That certainly covers some cases when AOE is
used, i.e. if the mobs are initially drawn to a 'tank' before being
AOEd.
However, when soloing or in PvP, this isn't an issue, because mages
cannot effectively use channeled or delayed AOE when enemies are on top
of them - only instant spells are practical. Still the AOE is quite
useful.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
kend...@nospam.io says...
> In article <fq4br8$9r$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
> Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >Kendrick Kerwin Chua <kend...@nospam.io> wrote:
> >>What if you split the difference then? Rather than it being a wholly
> >>hidden attribute, you make it an undocumented but repeatable quality. A
> >>character born in a specific month in a specific country finds out at
> >>level 15 that he can turn milk into cheese by staring at it and wishing
> <snip>
> >It would mostly reward people who consult some online walkthrough to find
> >out which birthdays are the best. These days, developers can't really
> >put secrets like this in a game, and assume that they will remain secret
> >for the majority of their players.
>
> It would have to be something that isn't easily quantifiable, or that you
> couldn't line up in a big chart. Born on a particular day in a particular
> country, standing in a church at high noon with a wooden shield equipped
> on the wrong arm... I suppose at that point it ceases to be a repeatable
> quality then. :)
Well, it could depend on your hardware. But if you changed PC, you'd
have to start all over again!
- Gerry Quinn
Leo
blabbed:
>How do you make a real time system that allows you to thrust / swing /
>chop either low / medium / high (with various advantages and
>disadvantages depending on the monster you are attacking) with
>corresponding defensive options? The answer is; you don't. Instead
>you just let the player target an enemy and have the character whack
>away at the target until one of them is dead. No tactical options
>apart from target selection and perhaps choice of weapon.
There was an FPS, die by the sword - that had an interestig
system. Old game. Almost a wii like system:
W/the keyboard you moved, no mouselook. W/the mouse you
controlled your sword arm - freeform. You could hit someone wherever
you wanted, or parry, or what have you. You could hit them in the
shoulder enough times to cut off their arm, drop your sword, pick up
their arm, then beat them to death w/it. hehe. Been a long time, but
I don't think they implemented things like relative amounts of armour
on different parts of the opponents body, but they easily could have.
Maybe they did and I just don't remember. You had to decide where to
swing your sword based on where the opponents sword was or he'd parry,
and based on which areas you've already damaged, etc... I might be
remembering wrong, but you could also injure their legs so they
couldn't run, etc... Its a shame no one ever tried to improve on the
system, ya just never saw it again. Maybe the wii, w/their
controller, will make some similar games. I can't imagine the wii
making a game where you can kill people w/their own severed limbs
though. hehe
Leo
The Horny Goat
wrote:
>> Dungeon Master had pretty good system: the characters were set, but
>> you selected which ones you wanted in your party.
>
>You also had the option to 'restart' each character, losing their
>current skills, and gaining a small amount of added potential over time.
>
>Of course, most players probably went for the latter. The characters
>still had some individuality, though.
I don't think I've seen anything in the CRPG world (maybe Wizardry 1!)
like one old D&D group I directed which featured "Dimli the Dwarf" who
rolled a natural 18/55 for strength and then in the very next role
rolled 4 for intelligence. Fortunately the player really believed in
role-playing and given I was allowing one point to an attribute of
their choice up to level 10 he quickly avoided too much silliness but
he was still a lot of fun.
>I like that system too. Modern games have done away with rolls for
>attributes for the most part too - either they let you swap them freely,
>or they just set them at the start.
>
>I'd like to see some games with 'hidden' attributes - maybe it is random
>(set by a hidden seed at the start) whether your character will discover
>at L10 that he has an aptitude for fire magic, lockpicking or whatever.
>But I'm not convinced most players would go for that.
I don't know ANY CRPG players that would not re-roll a Dimli these
days!
Michael Cecil
Playing the Nameless One with moron stats is quite fun.
--
Michael Cecil
http://macecil.googlepages.com/index.htm
Mark Morrison
wrote:
And the Fallouts, apparently, although I've never tried.
Low Int, High Luck - time to reinstall, maybe...