778 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Actually, BG, KoTOR and NWN were all turned based. While the game seamlessly transitioned between turns (unless you triggered a autopause at the end of every turn) everything was run through a turn by turn basis. For instance, you could only cast one spell per turn and in melee there were x numbers of attacks per turn.

I disagree.

Movement wasn't turn-based.  You could move your characters for any length of time and then, as long as the previous action's cooldowns had ended, being any action immediately.  This is not turn-based; this requires real-time.

The AD&D and D&D derived games look turn-based because the cooldowns for everything are standardised at the same length of time, with some abilities giving you multiple actions within that same cooldown period (like the ability to fire a bow twice per round in AD&D).

But how movement works demonstrates clearly that BioWare has never made a turn-based game.

[Realmzmaster]

Sir JK wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

None of Bioware's games are turn based . Starting with BG all have been realtime with pause. The reason the spells and abilities(feats)  did not have cooldowns is because it used the methods in D & D where you had a limited number of spells per level and they had to be memorized. Once a spell was used it was gone until it was re-memorized. Feats were always on.. Bioware has never made a turn based game.

Actually, BG, KoTOR and NWN were all turned based. While the game seamlessly transitioned between turns (unless you triggered a autopause at the end of every turn) everything was run through a turn by turn basis. For instance, you could only cast one spell per turn and in melee there were x numbers of attacks per turn.

This is not in place for the DA series.

Then Bioware must have written their manuals wrong because it says in all three mauals realtime with the ability to pause. Auto pausing allows the gamer to simulate turn based.  (Page 18 of the BG2 manual) The auto pause has to be turned on in the options otherwise the only way to stop the game from realtime is to hit the pause button or space bar to issue commands. 

True turn based is TOEE (Temple of Elemetal Evil) and POR:Myth Drannor (Pool of Radiance). Only one enemy or party member is allowed to act based on initiative at any time.

In BG and above all combatants are executing at the same time. BG and above are based on personal initative round of six seconds and a turn of 10 rounds or 60 seconds.
That applies to each party member. So all are in realtime acting at the same time. (Page 70 of the BG manual).
You can tell that BG and above are realtime because in a turn based game time stops if a character'sinentory is opened it does not in BG and above the action continues. 
NWN use the same realtime modification as BG1 and BG2.  The fact that rounds and turns are used to describe events does not matter because the action does not happen the way it does in a turn based game.

Contrast that with the TOEE manual on page 22 where it talks about the Initative bar. It states:

The Initative Bar appears along the top of the screen when combat begins. Each combatent's portrait appears on the bar in the order of highest initative roll, from left to right. Each protrait will highlight when it is that character's turn to act. When the last combatant in the round has acted, the next round begins and the first character on the bar takes his next turn. 

That next character can be different depending on what has occurred in the previous round. Was a combatant killed, helded, controlled etc.
POR (Pool of Radiance:Ruins of Myth Drannor) manual page 66-67 describes turn base by using initative with a timer. The order of combat is based on initative roles like TOEE except a green line timer is used to count down the time you have to act for that party member. If you do not act in time the action goes to the next combatant in the initative line.
This is turn based. BG and above are not.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 26 juillet 2012 - 05:05 .

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Because until I establish your JRPG experience I'm just throwing out names of games that you may not even be aware of. This is the problem when you try to hide behind an arguement you are not equipped to make yourself.And why I'm not wasting a lot of effort on it right now.

Either you don't have JRPG experience and you are like a kid that just won't eat sprouts even though he's never tried them. Or you do and you are just being difficult.

Why would you throw out names of games? There's an indication of that we're not communicating, because you totally lost me there. Either - you think there isn't any difference, or you think there is. And then you could state it.

I think that characterization by the player, and emergent narrative, are, to you, maybe interesting things sometimes, but in the whole just minor things, and you play RPGs for so many other reasons.

For me, however, they are the only  reasons I play RPGs. They are the essential features of a RPG. This is important. The label JRPG is not.

Is OK,  I'm outa here anyway. Bye.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 26 juillet 2012 - 09:59 .

[Deviija]

Dropping cinematics could be an answer to some issues. However, I will not deny my enjoyment of some cinematics -- and that highly depends on the cinematic itself. If it's a cinematic like Thane vs. Kai in ME3, where all kinds of action stuff is happening and my FemShep, Garrus, and Tali are just standing there, stupid, while watching the fight... then yeah, I rather do without the 'look how flashy and cool' cinematic that you're not a part of but an audience to. If it's a cinematic like, say, I choose 'stab the Halla out of mercy to end its suffering' and then the cinematic plays where my PC leans down and does the deed... that's fine.

Cinematics where it is doing an action based off of what you choose in your dialogue options is good. Cinematics where it goes off into Wonderland without offering you a choice of input is bad. My opinion anyway.