| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
I had the same issues with BG combat, you really didn't get much chance to appreciate how well your strategies were working, why you were taking damage, things like that. On the other hand if they switched to turn based combat, they would have needed to take out ALOT of combat to keep it from getting ridiculously tedious. BG had a ton of combat and often it was only the fast real time nature that made it bearable, particularly for the easy fights.
Not that taking out alot of combat would necesarily be a bad thing of course.... |
Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:49 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I don't understand the last sentence, "I think the games that try to make party combat active, but try to appease strategic types are too much of a middle to be fun." Not trying to flame or nitpick, I just don't understand. Isn't strategy a lot more active than no strategy? Unless your talking about reflex activity over brain activity.
I'd recast the questions and answers about strategic combat in terms of options and actions. Interesting combat usually provides lots of options for important actions which are causally connected. It's not simply a matter of reflex activity > brain activity or vice versa. It's more a matter of how concrete or how abstract the options are. Abstract options are good as long as they make sense and aren't pointlessly abstract. E.g., in chess, strategy is created through awareness, planning, and goals; you move to pursue objectives. Thus, though it involves abstract thinking--if I move my pieces here, this may happen--it is also tied to concrete, tangible results: capturing pieces, winning territory, and eventually winning or losing the game itself. I do not simply sit there during the game and think endlessly about where my pieces should move, what my opponent is thinking, and what I should do in response, because too much of any one activity, whether thinking, moving, or capturing pieces, will become boring. It is the combination of these elements, the innumerable choices to try to achieve winning objectives, that is fun and challenging. Concrete options would be more along the lines of knowing that when your character has a sword in hand and clicking the mouse which will force him to swing it at the enemy. Direct cause and effect.
Party-based RPGs, with more NPCs, obviously have the potential for more options, but how these options are implemented and handled is different. Also, it can be crippling to have too many options, if there's not enough done to differentiate and make them worthwhile; then gameplay becomes a tedious task of micromanagement.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:19 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I know I'm probably starting to sound like a broken record, but most of you guys are going to love Grimoire. You WILL spend hours creating and re-creating the perfect party; you will face baffling puzzles; you will have to plan and be willing to change combat strategy; you will have to make all manner of game changing decisions; you will need to use your brain, not just your index finger!! 
Personally, while I play and enjoy most types of RPG's, I prefer turn based primarily because I'm not a twitch gamer. TB works best with parties, so YES, I like Party games!!!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Jul 09, 2005 11:56 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I'm with you 100% Moxie. I just can't handle the RT.
Namirrha,
I hear you. Its like that game, Silent Hunter 3, not only do you neeed rock solid tactics, but timing, and dexterity are involved. I sucked at it. And games like UT involve strat + really developed reflexes.
But, I side with moxie and what nightshade said, too much going on at the same time and I get all confused and dizzy. Keeping with BG2 example, I hardly ever used aoe spells in combat because my guys like to do what they want. I have the mage cast the spell and all my guys are running into the area like fools. I lose all control. I look at this guy and 3 seconds later the other guy is dead. The only strat involvment for me is trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I'd much rather have 10, really hard and close call strategic and micromanaged battles than 1000 RT battles. The only real strategic battle I remember in any BG was one dragon in BG 2 where I had only one guy fight him and I had to save and reload 500 times to finally figure it out (the guy needed the fire armor, thats why I only had one guy fighting, not because I tried to solo the game with one character). But that was more strategic pre-planning than strategic combat. And maybe there was a better way, but half the fun of rpgs are figuring out how to do it yourself.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:14 am |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
BG2 combat was okay, but it was greatly improved in Icewind Dale 2. I think Icewind Dale 2 would have been a truely great rpg if it had the depth of the BG's games and wasn't so linear. The 3rd/2nd Edition hybrid ruleset that it used was really well done I thought. As long as RT games allow constant pausing I am not too put of by them but I did really enjoy the combat system in TOEE. I think a game that had great turn based strategy was the old gold box buck rogers games, using position and counter measures were essential to winning some of the battles in that game - anyone else defeat the control room in the first pirate ship when you get kidnapped? I think the only way I could beat it was playing through the game a second time with the party that I won it with the first time... |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:46 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Yeah, Buck Rogers was great. The best thing about it is that it was a great take on the Ad&D rules. The skill additions really added something to otherwise useless attributes. The combat, as you said, was also great. Lost of variables. Lots of tough combat. And the ship combat was great to. I just played through it again not to long ago, it was still good but the interface kind of kills you. Just switching items back and forth takes 4 or 5 years.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:06 am |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Wierd....I don't remember Icewind Dale' 2s combat being all that different then BG. But it did certainly have better character creation/development with the 3rd edition rules.
TTOE had some great exciting fights, and the mechanics were overall quite good without seeming to slow down the game too much. However the horrible AI generally kept most fights from living up to their potential. And sadly the numerous awful bugs, design flaws, and unfinished parts will always be what I remember more then the combat. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:54 am |
|
|
bjon045
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 234
|
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
Wierd....I don't remember Icewind Dale' 2s combat being all that different then BG.
Let me give a few examples:
-Battles were enemies make use of the terrain i.e. the druids cave before the ice palace where they pound you with arrows, the orc's who try to explode barrels next to you etc
-Battles were the objective is not to kill the enemies i.e. Where you are trying to take out the support structures of the dam
-New tactics i.e. the backstab and let the enemies converge then you pound them with AOE spells. And the major battles didn't tend to be against demi-lichs and dragons ala BG2.
And then their was heart of fury mode and which I must admit I could never finish because some of the battles just got too hard for me. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 2:10 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Ah ok I do remember some of that. But ultimately it sounds like the combat engine was the same, they just designed their battles to be more interesting. Which is still really important of course....any gamer can tell you that good level design can often make up for for the most mediocre game mechanics. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:04 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by bjon045
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
Wierd....I don't remember Icewind Dale' 2s combat being all that different then BG.
Let me give a few examples:
-Battles were enemies make use of the terrain i.e. the druids cave before the ice palace where they pound you with arrows, the orc's who try to explode barrels next to you etc
-Battles were the objective is not to kill the enemies i.e. Where you are trying to take out the support structures of the dam
-New tactics i.e. the backstab and let the enemies converge then you pound them with AOE spells. And the major battles didn't tend to be against demi-lichs and dragons ala BG2.
And then their was heart of fury mode and which I must admit I could never finish because some of the battles just got too hard for me.
My favorite part of IWD 2 was the fight on the chess board, that took a lot of reloading and luck.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:39 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
