| |
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
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| RPGDot Feature: Drakensang: The Dark Eye Interview |
|
Radon Labs is taking cRPG players back to Das Schwarze Auge - what will it be like? We had the chance to send over some questions on this party-based cRPG based on 'The Dark Eye' license:<em><blockquote><b>RPGDot: Can you summarize Drakensang and the gameplay it will offer?</b>
<br>
<br>Bernd Beyreuther: The most telling description of DSA: DRAKENSANG might be something like Baldur's Gate in 3D, but based on The Dark Eye, Germany's biggest RPG system. This means: classic party-based RPG, no irritating button mashing, but tactical, pausable combat, a skill-based dynamic dialogue system, unique characters and an epic story as a primary element. All this set against the backdrop of a classic low fantasy world with elves, dwarfs, orcs - definitely no spaceships and time travel, but an almost historical and very deep medieval world.</em></blockquote>Head <a href="http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=1228">here</a> to read it all. |
Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:26 pm |
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
Cool. Thank you, Mr. Gorath (and Mr. Bernd, too, of course)  . Not a whole lot of new info since the German PC Games preview but at least we know for sure now that they are planning on a pick-up party (disappointing IMHO) and that the game might not be limited to Mittelreich/Middenrealm but that we might get to see other parts of Aventuria as well.
Looking forward to another Drakensang interview on hmm... *checks today's date*... how does 7/7/7 sound?  |
|
Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:43 pm |
|
|
Father of Lies
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 42
Location: Montreal, Canada |
I'd like to know where they (and other devs) got the information that RPG players prefer real-time combat to turn-based. The tenure of some discussions on these forums seem to indicate the contrary.
I do find it surprising that no developer has tried to emulate -- or downright copy -- the excellent battle system of ToEE. Maybe because the Troika game didn't sell as well as the Baldur's Gate series ? |
|
Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:42 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I really thought the next game in the DSA series would fill me with joy, and it did until I heard more about it.
Great questions asked in the interview; I can’t say I’m too keen on the answers. If they want to implement DSA with absolute authenticity, why screw up the biggest game mechanic? I’d much rather enjoy what I’m doing through the majority of the game.
Good interview though.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:37 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Hmm.....interesting. So it seems like they are trying to put more emphasis on the story and skill based interaction while speeding up/putting less emphasis on combat. I always thought the combat in RoA was mind numbingly tedious and by far the worst part of the game (and I love turn based combat). So this may be a good thing. |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:36 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
While I'm VERY interested in this game, I have 2 comments on the interview. First, several of the questions were sidestepped and not really answered, and secondly, with only 15% done, there's a possibility that much could change, or be left out between now and release. I've been disappointed before- DL anyone!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
Last edited by corwin on Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:17 am |
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
First off a little disclaimer: I was a huge fan of the original RoA games. They're some of the very few games I ever replayed. I also liked the turn-based combat in e.g. M&M VI and VII. I got nothing against turn-based combat at all.
However, I'm not so sure if a true turn-based system modelled after the old system in RoA I-III would really be enjoyable nowadays. I think I would find it very immersion-breaking if the game would go to a full stop and switch to a grid screen whenever there is a battle.
The beauty of our modern games is that computers today do not have any trouble to calculate and display the movements/animations/AI/scripts of several characters in real-time.
The increase in computing power is one of the main reasons why the transition to real-time was made. It would be inaccurate to assume that gamers were more "hardcore" a little over a decade ago.
Game developers had to work with what they (or the gamers for that matter) had and if you had to make a party-based CRPG with a ruleset and if you wanted to have at least decent character animations then you basically had to make your game turn-based. I would even dare to say that turn-based was a technological limitation and usually not a matter of game design.
Why would we want to go back and limit ourselves again? Isn't it much nicer and more immersive to travel around a fantasy world in real-time?
Sure... party-based RPGs (as opposed to single character RPGs) do obviously require an extra level of attention to make the combat interesting and challenging.
I guess we all don't want Drakensang to play itself like Dungeon Siege did. That will be Radon Lab's greatest challenge, i.e. to give us a sense of control over the outcome of a battle, some choices, some strategy, some tactics, some input whatsoever...
If they (hopefully) manage to pull that off, I'll take a modern real-time combat RPG over a turn-based combat RPG anytime because real-time is simply more realistic, more natural and less immersion-breaking in my opinion. |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:17 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Well there are plenty of turn based RPGS that are fun, although it's fair to say that most of them don't make it to the main stream. I think the real problem are the game mechanics of RoA, which might work fine for a pen and paper game where you only have 1 or 2 fights a night, but work poorly for a computer game. Basically creatures had a lot of hit points and the damage peopole do is low in comparison so it could take several rounds of combat to kill even a single enemy. There are not a whole lot of tactical options in the game other then spell casting, and even spellcasting usually serves to delay the combat by interferring with enemies, rather then killing them. As a result even the most basic fight with non plot relevent wandering monsters could take a half hour or even longer. And it wasn't an exciting half hour, it was a tedious half hour of clicking attack over and over again and wishing the monsters would hurry up and die. Often I would quit the game and reload if I got a random encounter because that was far faster and more enjoyable then actually fighting it.
Taking that mind numbingly boring fight and speeding it up would be a big step towards making the game more playable. |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:04 pm |
|
|
ToddMcF2002
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 317
Location: Boston MA |
People who like turn based have a table top background. ToEE is the best implementation yet (combat wise).
Copy it.
_________________
"For Innos!" |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:53 pm |
|
|
Gorath
Mostly Harmless
Joined: 03 Sep 2001
Posts: 6327
Location: NRW, Germany |
Just copy KotOR.
_________________
Webmaster GothicDot |
|
Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:18 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
Hmm.....interesting. So it seems like they are trying to put more emphasis on the story and skill based interaction while speeding up/putting less emphasis on combat. I always thought the combat in RoA was mind numbingly tedious and by far the worst part of the game (and I love turn based combat). So this may be a good thing.
I disagree 100%. The combat in the original series was great. It was very strategic and tactical. Every move counted, and every roll. The color system for events was great. It was pure heaven. I loved it.
quote:
I'm not so sure if a true turn-based system modelled after the old system in RoA I-III would really be enjoyable nowadays.
Then model it after the DSA combat in the DSA sourcebooks exactly. Its good combat.
quote:
I would even dare to say that turn-based was a technological limitation and usually not a matter of game design.
What about Darklands? I would dare say that TB combat was the implementation of the combat as dictated by the rpg systems the games were based off of.
quote:
Why would we want to go back and limit ourselves again?
For the sake of all that is good, authenticity, and real strategic and tactical combat.
quote:
Isn't it much nicer and more immersive to travel around a fantasy world in real-time?
Yes, then have the game switch seamlessly to TB combat as ToEE did, Darksun did, and FO, etc. did so combat can be good. I guess if we continue with your way of thinking the pause function should be removed.
quote:
People who like turn based have a table top background.
I don’t. I have a background of liking challenging, strategic, and tactical combat that is good. I have played p&p once, and that was by forum with a couple people from here. That’s my only experience with p&p.
quote:
ToEE is the best implementation yet (combat wise).
I disagree. I think the RoA series had much better combat. If we are counting TBS’s I’d easily throw JA’s combat and and SS in there also (probably also x-com’s). I’m probably missing a couple. ToEE could have been better across the board, but for large parts of the temple they used the, “throw a million weak enemies at you” model, which I can’t stand. I think ToEE had the potential for much better combat, especially at higher levels when different builds really starded to be differentiated and play differently. At lvl 10 a druid and a cleric don’t play much differently. It just doesn’t let you get to the meat of the system and different classes. But yeah, implementing an rpg system as accurately as possible can only lead to great, as ToEE proved and Drakensang could have proved.[/quote]
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:34 am |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
Hmm....different experiences I guess. I found difficult fights in RoA to be reasonably fun and tactical (although no more so then most other decent TB games). But the random grunt fights in RoA were perhaps the most horribly boring of any game I have ever played. Since the game had far more random grunt fights then difficult fights, I'd give it an F for combat overall.
TToE did have a good combat system (well ignoring the horrible AI), but a big part of that is that the rules it is based on were generally quite good and well designed for CRPGs. It would not necesarily work well for every game system. The combat in 3rd edition D&D is many times more interesting and complicated then the game ROA is based on, so they would have to massively dumb it down to work with their source material. |
|
Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:58 am |
|
|
Kharn
Village Dweller
Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 3
|
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
Hmm....different experiences I guess. I found difficult fights in RoA to be reasonably fun and tactical (although no more so then most other decent TB games). But the random grunt fights in RoA were perhaps the most horribly boring of any game I have ever played. Since the game had far more random grunt fights then difficult fights, I'd give it an F for combat overall.
Not meaning to be anal or anything, but if a Startrail fight got really, really boring and easy, I'd just select "computer fight, no magic" and then open up my book and continue reading from where stopped.
It was kind of the game's way of admitting that fights could be boring, though.
No, RoA wasn't perfect combat-wise, but its limitations were mostly technical ones, technical limitations to TB combat that were already proven to belong to the past by the time of Fallout (Fallout, by the way, had hex-based combat and movement too, but how often did you notice that?). Redoing their combat system in a slightly more modern jacket would certainly fix any boring problems it had.
As for "immersion". Heh. "Immersion" has become the stop-word for lazy developers. "Hey, guys, should we make an auto-travel system?" "Hell no, dude, that takes time, just let them run around through our painstakingly beautifully rendered world and call it immersion!"
Immershun! Immershun!
Yet the same people that spend days making their game beautiful "and thus immersive" grafix don't mind implementing a pokeball-based dialogue system?
Immersive schmimmersive. What you need for immersion is a thought-out, well-done world, interesting dialogues and characters and a combat system that play intuitively. Turn-based or real-time? Less important, important is that it plays intuitively, that it feels natural. As long as it does that it doesn't break "precious immersion", not in the least.
Fallout's combat system never broke immersion, last time I checked, despite the fact that a little screen would go ca-click and open and people would suddenly have red outlines to indicate you're in combat. Immersion-breaking? Not really, unless you don't get the concept of immersion.
Baldur's Gate? Now *that* had immersion-breaking combat. Why? Mostly because combat was boring, very very boring. Well, either it was boring or you had to reload 50 times every fight to properly get rid of those Charm-spells or first deadly poison attacks. Woot, immersion! |
|
Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:23 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
hehe well the boring thing in Baldur's gate shows perhaps one of the biggest obstacles in RPGs in general.....and that's the fact that the average fight with wandering monsters has the potential to become very boring. The problem is the whole concept of the grunt fight....they are fights that are primarily designed to slow down your progress in the game, and they are designed so that you have many fights without depleting so many of your resources that you can't beat the more significant fights. As a result they tend to be easy. And easy+time consuming=boring.
I actually think this is perhaps the number one purpose of real time combat in many games.....to speed up fights that would otherwise be boring. I loved BG 2, but I could not imagine doing it's many fights in turn based combat. They were boring enough in real time.
Perhaps the problem then is not so much using real time vs turn based combat, but rather creating non "boss" fights that are interesting enough that you dont want to always get them over with ASAP
As for ROA, I honestly don't remember why I didn't use autocombat more then I did. I remember many games where autocombat resulted in you taking far more damage/casualties then you otherwise should....it's possible that ROA may have been one of those games.. |
|
Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:33 am |
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
As for ROA, I honestly don't remember why I didn't use autocombat more then I did. I remember many games where autocombat resulted in you taking far more damage/casualties then you otherwise should....it's possible that ROA may have been one of those games..
That is correct as far as I can remember. Auto-resolve always yielded worse results than if you controlled the battle manually. The problem was that you could only heal by resting/camping, and even then, if your heroes had a bad night (with a random encounter for example), it could happen that they would wake up not fully recovered. That's why it was always a good idea to travel with the highest possible hitpoints which could only be achieved if you did not opt to auto-resolve.
BTW, I don't quite remember any large number of tedious and boring random encounters either... with the exception of a short phase in RoA II: Star Trail where you were being chased by other adventure parties either after acquiring the Star Trail axe or after obtaining the Salamander Stone... I don't remember. That was definitely pretty nerve-wrecking because those competing parties kept attacking you day and night until you were able to shake them at some point. |
|
Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:56 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
