27 réponses à ce sujet

[bEVEsthda]

I'm not sure why I bother to even post this here. I know that the current Bioware teams aren't in any way interested in things like this. Neither is EA. And the current composition of posters on the DA2 forum is not encouraging either.

Still: Gameplay in current crop of RPGs suck. It's all bad. And it's bad for one single reason. They attempt to be "action"ary or "action"ish.  This results in a long list of limitations which empoverish combat gameplay. It also results in unrealism. As developers contort and base themselves in effort to delight FPS players or preteen or teen console players.

Going back to combat system that is entirely tactical gameplay, not just "tactical combat", would open up a universe of possibilities. We would not be limited to just 5 vs 5, or one vs 1 to 5. Do give us 50 adversaries. Or even 100. And 3, and 7.
Scrap these pretentions to seem like an action game. Get back to tactical gameplay. Make a combat system that takes no impact from number of opponents or hardware specs.

Such combat can look very good. That's just a question of generating good animations. The point is that you have to accept forced pauses and the fact that the game will only react to your input at certain paused points. The game can be turn based (BG), or (better) based on timeline, or action/reaction points (X-Com). What it won't be is action, or "feel" reactive. Button and "awesome" will definitely be disconnected. But the combat will be perfectly under player control.

Timelined might look something like this: Every char (player and enemy) follows an order (player or AI) that ends at some checkpoint. They could all be moving to some spots, for instance.

Logic and pathfinding computes each's position along the timeline. If nothing happens (various checks) the positions are computed on the timeline until one char reaches its destination spot. If it's an AI controlled char, a new order will be derived. It could be to continue to a new spot, or stop and wait for followers. If it waits for followers, the char will now have a new checkpoint -> Follower A, B, C have all reached their spots.

When the followers reach their spots, they in turn will receive new orders and checkpoints. The orders could be wait, and the checkpoint could be that the leader has started moving again. So this group is moving towards some destination. The quickest periodically stopping to let others catch up, thus keeping the group together.

This is still just a timeline. Nothing is happening. But there are checks. A check if a player char has discovered them. When this check returns positive, a pause mark for this char is placed on the timeline. Other char's orders still take them beyond this pause mark, but no further computing of the timeline is done.

Instead, the timeline is animated. And then the animation is played, all the way to the pause mark. There everything stops, and the player can give an order. The timeline is then computed again. Now other chars will get new checkmarks for reacting to either the player char, or their own discovery. If other chars are player controlled, these checkmarks will be pause marks, and the chars will accept player input at reaching these.

Basically, you should understand the system by now. In pure form you cannot pause the game manually. The animation is already generated to the next pause mark. It runs in intervals, between orders and computing. Pauses are injected to stop the timeline by various events. Order is completed, of course, and checks for if the order is still viable, and checks for important discoveries.

However, it's probably desirable to have some player ability to react to the animation. So put in a manual pause. This will halt the animation and truncate the timeline at that pause. After new orders, the timeline will be rebuilt towards next pausemark, new animation generated and played.

Considering the fantastic possibilities (scalability, intelligence, injuries, retreat, surrender, fleeing, integration into the rest of the game, even dialogue) of a tactical system, it seems a pity to give it all up for some tiresome, 'same ol', 'same ol', "action", combat 5 vs 5, always until death, abilities 100% until last drop of blood is shed, etc gaming clichés.

[wsandista]

Yep, gameplay in recent RPGs is horrible. Why do you think so many funded Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland2? I think many are tired of games being more actiony or over-simplified.

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Yep, gameplay in recent RPGs is horrible. Why do you think so many funded Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland2? I think many are tired of games being more actiony or over-simplified.

Nostalgia.

Nice thing about kickstarters is you can make a game for a niche group. That's not really feasible otherwise.

[Dakota Strider]

@bEVEsthda Preach it Brother!!!
Amen!!

There are more than a few of us still around that also believe that RPG's have actually regressed as they have attempted to capture an "arcade" / "action" type feel.

Bioware used to create the best RPG's in the industry. For some reason, they feel they need to become a hybrid of other games, which made their games only average. It is time they go back to do what they do best, and leave the action games to other companies. There are more than enough out there.

[KDD-0063]

I'm okay with both kinds of combat.

However, DA2, I believe, is a step in the wrong direction.
You can't 'actionize' a game that is party based. A party based game needs to go back to the core tactical system.

[Realmzmaster]

Neither BG, NWN nor DAO had pure tactical combat or gameplay. Both were realtime with pause. If you want real tactical gameplay then it should follow the mode of Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor. In those games initiative determine who could act first and it would then continue down the line until the one with the lowest initiative acted.

In fact Bioware has never made a true tactical cRPG. Now if you are saying you want realtime with pause fine. But I had no problem controlling the party in DA2 since the speed in both BG and NWN is faster than DAO, but YMMV.

Also if you want a game in the vein of TOEE or POR:MD i have no problem with that.

[Tommyspa]

Back to? Was it ever there? DA2 plays exactly like DAO, except things are no longer static and slow, but chaotic and fast moving.

[Chiramu]

The only way to make it truly tactical is to reduce the combat to something more like a game of chess. And that's more like turn based combat system. Also if you want truly tactical combat, why not just play an RTS? Strategy and tactical combat kind of go hand in hand.

[Realmzmaster]

Chiramu wrote...

The only way to make it truly tactical is to reduce the combat to something more like a game of chess. And that's more like turn based combat system. Also if you want truly tactical combat, why not just play an RTS? Strategy and tactical combat kind of go hand in hand.

That is the style of TOEE and POR:MD. The combat is turn based using initative to decide who goes first. Many of the earlier cRPGs used the turn based system.

[Dakota Strider]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Neither BG, NWN nor DAO had pure tactical combat or gameplay. Both were realtime with pause. If you want real tactical gameplay then it should follow the mode of Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor. In those games initiative determine who could act first and it would then continue down the line until the one with the lowest initiative acted.

In fact Bioware has never made a true tactical cRPG. Now if you are saying you want realtime with pause fine. But I had no problem controlling the party in DA2 since the speed in both BG and NWN is faster than DAO, but YMMV.

Also if you want a game in the vein of TOEE or POR:MD i have no problem with that.

NwN also used initiative in combat.  It may have not been easy to notice, because it was a game that also depended on player reaction time,  But it took into account dexterity modifiers, as well as casting times and weapon speed modifiers.  All which is part of a turn based, initiative system.   If you were real good with the pause button, you could basically play it round by round.  Not in the multiplayer, of course, where there was no "Pause".  I am pretty sure the BG games used inititive too.  A spell caster could start a spell, and it had the chance to be disrupted if the opponent was quicker and successfully attacked.

[Tigerman123]

If you want tactical gameplay play panzer general or the total war series, no rpg has anything other than very simple mechanics. DA2 nightmare was more challenging than DA1 anyway, it doesn't really require any tactical nous to spam storm the century

[KDD-0063]

Tigerman123 wrote...

If you want tactical gameplay play panzer general or the total war series, no rpg has anything other than very simple mechanics. DA2 nightmare was more challenging than DA1 anyway, it doesn't really require any tactical nous to spam storm the century

DAO's combat system has problems in things like boss AI, enemy mechanics, cheap player tactics, and difficulty curve (DAO's nightmare is only about 20% harder than normal). The 'fix' isn't to actionize the combat.

[bEVEsthda]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Neither BG, NWN nor DAO had pure tactical combat or gameplay. Both were realtime with pause. If you want real tactical gameplay then it should follow the mode of Temple of Elemental Evil or Pool of Radiance:Myth Drannor. In those games initiative determine who could act first and it would then continue down the line until the one with the lowest initiative acted.

In fact Bioware has never made a true tactical cRPG. Now if you are saying you want realtime with pause fine. But I had no problem controlling the party in DA2 since the speed in both BG and NWN is faster than DAO, but YMMV.

Also if you want a game in the vein of TOEE or POR:MD i have no problem with that.

All of those (BG, NWN, DA:O, TOEE, POR:MD) have turnbased mechanical systems underneath (and so do DA2). Different turnbased with different features, but turnbased nevertheless.
I suggested three methods for having 'tactical gameplay'  (please note I'm not saying "tactical combat" - that probably follows but is not what I want to get at). Two of those suggestions can have turnbased mechanics.

I believe I was muddling things when I didn't make any/the distinction, while you are clearly speaking about player interface (Actually, BG let you configure pauses, also at end of every turn, making it 100% "turnbased", also at player interface).
So it must be my own fault that I got so many strange comments here. Actually, I wasn't really considering the distinction, because when you have turnbased underneath, it lies close that you can in some way see that turnbased from the player interface. And I kinda made that a premiss, without thinking about making it clear.

I asked for "tactical gameplay" (again: not tactical combat - though it kinda follows). I didn't go much into detail about player interface, just sketching possibilities. But TOEE and POR:MD works fine as examples of general direction that I would have liked to see, though I mainly described a much more advanced and flexible underlying system. The reason  I asked for tactical, is that I believe that is the most fruitful way forward. Meaning I want to see things evolve.

I don't hate DA2 combat (PC-version). I'm sort of semi-OK with it. I see why M.L. did it and I can grudgingly sort of agree. I dislike the animations, asymmetry and nukepower skills. But M.L. spoke the truth when he said it's much like DA:O. It's just that for any "positive" change, there is also a drawback, and with the new 'style' and streamlining, the total is arguably impoverished, diminished, compared to DA:O. But I wasn't enthusiastic about DA:O either. But ultimately, I prefer both DA:O and DA2 combat to Skyrim or Witcher2.

What inspired my OP wasn't DA2 combat (probably more Skyrim, ). No, I came to realize that combat in all the recent RPGs only serve one purpose for me; I enjoy the dread of facing it (and that is why I habitually always put difficulty at second highest). The combat itself is otherways useless to me. I don't enjoy it. And I'm always annoyed because I think it's stupid in some way, etc. (This is in contrast to IWD combat, which I do enjoy.) And I'm also kinda annoyed that games like DA2, and M.L. pre-release statements - looking at them in retrospec - suggests that Bioware think this silly combat is all gameplay there has to be, as they tell their  story, on the side.

Looking at mainstream cRPG combat systems, they haven't advanced since BG and IWD. They have changed, but rather than using our advanced computers to implement something interesting and advanced, they have devolved to handle only starkly symbolic and simplified concepts.
One of the reasons is that they're modelling their gameplay along archetypical console paradigms. Another is that "real time" is considered. So drop "real time" by the wayside, and never turn back. That is one of the core things I'm suggesting.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 10:02 .

[bEVEsthda]

Tigerman123 wrote...

If you want tactical gameplay play panzer general or the total war series, no rpg has anything other than very simple mechanics. DA2 nightmare was more challenging than DA1 anyway, it doesn't really require any tactical nous to spam storm the century

For Brent Knowles' original "challenge", - Try PC-version DA:O without installing the 1.01 patch.   

[AkiKishi]

I've played a lot of TB games recently so I can't say I'm missing them.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I've played a lot of TB games recently so I can't say I'm missing them.

I never specifically asked for a turn based game.
I didn't describe a turnbased system.
I don't want this thread to be about turn based (or peoples' preconceived notions about turn based; read, old turn based).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 10:17 .

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Yep, gameplay in recent RPGs is horrible. Why do you think so many funded Shadowrun Returns and Wasteland2? I think many are tired of games being more actiony or over-simplified.

Nostalgia.

Nice thing about kickstarters is you can make a game for a niche group. That's not really feasible otherwise.

This is true. And this is one of the things I always have in mind when I say I understand what M.L. wanted to do with the combat ( and he sort of succeeded too, I think, with some things).

Clearly a problem is the mainstream established market's expectations.

Tactical gameplay itself is - I believe - addictive and highly interesting.  ...When people have gotten into it.
 
X-Com's advocates, for instance, are very enthusiastic.  And rightly so because it's a helluva game!
SimCity 3 is I believe the highest selling PC game ever? Or one of the highest selling anyway.

There is very clearly a big market for non-action games. It need not be a niche. That's probably a matter for people's discoveries. But they can't discover a thing that doesn't exist. Today lots of people just completely turn their backs to video gaming, because the consolish games offers nothing they'd be interested in. The video game industry have themselves shrunk their potential market.

I have this notion, this suspicion like, - that for every male teenager who takes great delight in swinging the sword in KoA or Dark Souls, there is like a dozen persons who sneers "how can you waste your time like that", who could very well be completely absorbed and fascinated by an interactive adventure story, like cRPGs offers, if the gameplay, style and animations weren't so "retarded", as they typically are and increasingly seem to become.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 10:42 .

[ashwind]

Still: Gameplay in current crop of RPGs suck. It's all bad. And it's bad for one single reason. They attempt to be "action"ary or "action"ish

I do not agree. Gameplay in current RPG sucks because games like DA2 tries to be "actiony" and "tactical" at the same time, does a poor job at both then marries them together and created a chaotic monster.

Action RPG if done right is extremely fun to play; example: KoA. 100x the action of DA2 and none of its chaos. But it has its limitation; It suits mostly RPG that you are controlling 1 character and not a squad like DA. In the case of DA, a more tactical approach would be preferred.

So, in "Action RPG", we should not worry about our companions and in "Tactical RPG", we should have full control over our companions; meaning if I tell Isabela to stand somewhere and die or just sit out of the fight, she does exactly that and not something the "AI" thinks is smart or better.

I dont feel that either turn-based or action-packed is better than the other. Neither contributed to the horrible gameplay. Both can be fun if made properly. Developers who try to marry the 2 systems and try to win over both action RPG fans and tactical RPG fans are the ones destroying gameplay.

Dragon Age 2 is a team-based RPG, I do not think it can be too "action-packed" without sacrificing a lot. Regardless, I hope Bioware would choose: ACTION or TACTICAL instead of, "Well, we want to give players a bit of both..." <---- This actually means, it will neither be a good action-rpg nor a good tactical-rpg. It is an abomination.

[bEVEsthda]

ashwind wrote...

Still: Gameplay in current crop of RPGs suck. It's all bad. And it's bad for one single reason. They attempt to be "action"ary or "action"ish

I do not agree. Gameplay in current RPG sucks because games like DA2 tries to be "actiony" and "tactical" at the same time, does a poor job at both then marries them together and created a chaotic monster.

Action RPG if done right is extremely fun to play; example: KoA. 100x the action of DA2 and none of its chaos. But it has its limitation; It suits mostly RPG that you are controlling 1 character and not a squad like DA. In the case of DA, a more tactical approach would be preferred.

So, in "Action RPG", we should not worry about our companions and in "Tactical RPG", we should have full control over our companions; meaning if I tell Isabela to stand somewhere and die or just sit out of the fight, she does exactly that and not something the "AI" thinks is smart or better.

I dont feel that either turn-based or action-packed is better than the other. Neither contributed to the horrible gameplay. Both can be fun if made properly. Developers who try to marry the 2 systems and try to win over both action RPG fans and tactical RPG fans are the ones destroying gameplay.

Dragon Age 2 is a team-based RPG, I do not think it can be too "action-packed" without sacrificing a lot. Regardless, I hope Bioware would choose: ACTION or TACTICAL instead of, "Well, we want to give players a bit of both..." <---- This actually means, it will neither be a good action-rpg nor a good tactical-rpg. It is an abomination.

I agree with most of your points here.
What I miss, and the reason for my post, is seeing games that really develop the tactical gameplay.

Another big reason, is that once you let go of the realtime requirement, you open up a world of fantastic possibilities, which will never be there otherwise.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 10:52 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
This is true. And this is one of the things I always have in mind when I say I understand what M.L. wanted to do with the combat ( and he sort of succeeded too, I think, with some things).

Clearly a problem is the mainstream established market's expectations.

Tactical gameplay itself is - I believe - addictive and highly interesting.  ...When people have gotten into it.
 
X-Com's advocates, for instance, are very enthusiastic.  And rightly so because it's a helluva game!
SimCity 3 is I believe the highest selling PC game ever? Or one of the highest selling anyway.

There is very clearly a big market for non-action games. It need not be a niche. That's probably a matter for people's discoveries. But they can't discover a thing that doesn't exist. Today lots of people just completely turn their backs to video gaming, because the consolish games offers nothing they'd be interested in. The video game industry have themselves shrunk their potential market.

I have this notion, this suspicion like, - that for every male teenager who takes great delight in swinging the sword in KoA or Dark Souls, there is like a dozen persons who sneers "how can you waste your time like that", who could very well be completely absorbed and fascinated by an interactive adventure story, like cRPGs offers, if the gameplay, style and animations weren't so "retarded", as they typically are and increasingly seem to become.

Big fan of X-com not so much SimCity.New X-Com played a lot like Mass Effect, but that looks to have sunk like a rock somewhere.

I don't really believe that. I mean the games are already out there and while they sell decently for the most part they don't sell enough to make them mainstream. Irony of that statement is that handhelds/consoles are where you go to find games with tactical gameplay. 

Again really don't think that is the case, because these games exist. Now it's feasible to say that because they are not advertised they don't sell. A well advertised turd will sell more than a unadvertised gem. But those not lead by the mainstream would know where to look anyway.

The problem with DA2 was it was trying to pull in too many different directions. The tactics interface and the speed and art style don't mesh well at all. DAO was slower, but having pre-set encounters (rather than waves) made it easier to use tactics, rather than just managing cool downs to cope with waves. While I do think DA needs to pick a direction I'm not that bothered which direction it picks.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I don't really believe that. I mean the games are already out there and while they sell decently for the most part they don't sell enough to make them mainstream. Irony of that statement is that handhelds/consoles are where you go to find games with tactical gameplay. 

Again really don't think that is the case, because these games exist. Now it's feasible to say that because they are not advertised they don't sell. A well advertised turd will sell more than a unadvertised gem. But those not lead by the mainstream would know where to look anyway.

They did sell. Once upon a time. SimCity did, golf games did,.. And a lot of gamers, not least women, originally came into video gaming precisely from non-action cRPGs.

One of the things here which forms the problem, is that "mainstream" does not any longer include all the potential market for such games. I don't really know what to do about that. Mere advertizing won't help, as these people have turned their back on video gaming.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 11:38 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

FWIW, I don't feel as if the current formula of RTwP needs to be drastically changed to the type of phase-based combat the OP is suggesting. It simply needs to be refocused on gameplay mechanics that actually encourage tactical thinking.

Both Dragon Age games take from MMOs in how they approach combat and implement gameplay mechanics that are Arcade-y or are "needlessly complex but not really tactical". The CCCs and Spell Combos, whilst interesting ideas, are key examples.

I find that the Total War example used is especially illuminating in distinguishing Arcade or Needlessly Complex from Tactical. In terms of what the player has to manage, Dragon Age 2 has more variables for the player or game to take into account, but TW is clearly the more tactical game. It's because the actual mechanics relate to concepts that are actually tactical for the units.

i.e Morale, Fatigue, Positioning, Terrain, Range, LoS, etc.

If you want Dragon Age to be more tactical in the future, the gameplay needs to focus on gameplay mechanics and concepts that actually relate to actual tactical considerations on the battlefield.

Rather than making the focal point of tactics the micromanagement of cooldowns, the ability of dealing out DPS and handling the regeneration of HP/MP/SP, I'd like to see the focal point of tactics to be the exploitation of enemy weaknesses whilst minimizing the ones of the party.

That could be done a multitude of ways. One way is to change the relationships of how equipment works where you have different damage types w/ weaknesses and strengths.

e.g. Chainmail deflects Swords easily but does nothing to stop arrows, whereas Platemail provides much better coverage, but mobility and movement speed suffers. Or how Longbows dish more damage and have a longer range than a Shortbow, but a slower attack speed.

To add to that, changing how the environment affects gameplay also should be looked at. There's the common example of elevation affecting damage, but what about the incline of the plain affecting movement speed based on your equipment? (i.e running up a hill w/ Plate Armor is slow compared to wearing Mage Robes). Or, what about specific types of environments affecting gameplay? A Snowy environment could render Fire based Spells useless, boost the strength of Ice Spells and reduce the party's LoS (leaving them vulnerable to ambushes without scouting) would be a specific example.

Even Pokemon does that much.

Then there are other things that are already in the games that aren't really expanded upon: positioning damage, how the injuries work (specific locational injuries that are harder to heal), how the KO system works, things like Knockback and the implementation of Force/Fortitude. I'd love to see an instant-kill animation for Knocked back enemies if you get a critical hit and pass a Force check.

Genuine Stealth integrated into gameplay (instead of "Temporary Invisibility Cloak Spell") is also another way to make the game more tactical.

Of course, seeing as the Dragon Age games are RPGs, as many of those elements as possible ought to be linked to the character system and customization. So I'd love to see Stats and/or Specializations determining things like Movement Speed, or the strength of your Abilities. I'd rather Talents be used for actual Moves or "Stances" (Passive Abilities) as opposed to upgrades.

Now, I have my issues on how the character system has been put together (lots of issues), but I won't mention that today.

So, IMO, aside from changing the combat to have symmetry and as such, removing the disparity of base stats between party and enemies, what's required is a change of focus rather than a change of actual gameplay style.

They'd both be incredibly different to what's currently on offer, but playing the game will be relatively similar, it's just that the focus and purpose of the gameplay mechanics would be different.

Now whether BioWare would be interested in making such changes (at least in focus if not in specific implementations), assuming they're possible, is something that I don't hold much faith in. Seeing as BioWare open admits to making the story and cinematics their primary focus, not the gameplay, I'm sure that satisfying romantic plots probably ranks higher in their priorities. At least it would, if the community is any indication.

Thank God for Kickstarter.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 03 juin 2012 - 12:03 .

[Chromie]

CrustyBot wrote...
Even Pokemon does that much.

Pokemon Conquest is a lot more tactical even. 

 

[bEVEsthda]

@ Crustybot

I'm not sure you have taken much care in reading the posts, because you are mainly talking about tactical combat, despite that I have repeatedly pointed out that is not the subject.

Doing interesting things, in the gameplay, is mainly coupled to dropping any pretensions of real-time.
That is the crunch thing that opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 03 juin 2012 - 12:03 .

[sickpixie]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...

If you want tactical gameplay play panzer general or the total war series, no rpg has anything other than very simple mechanics. DA2 nightmare was more challenging than DA1 anyway, it doesn't really require any tactical nous to spam storm the century

For Brent Knowles' original "challenge", - Try PC-version DA:O without installing the 1.01 patch.   

As far as I'm aware, the 1.01 patch only gave a boost to easy and normal, leaving hard and nightmare untouched. I think it also fixed the level scaling bug where all the encounters in Denerim were scaled to their maximum regardless of yours. That was a lot of fun for me, I imagine going through it now would be somewhat disappointing.