Real-Time or Turn-Based RPG Combat Systems
#1
Posted 14 January 2005 - 04:58 AM
I favour the combination system found in Knights of the Old Republic and Baldur's Gate, among others. It's not as slow and dragging as turn based, but it allows you to pause at any time and be as tactical as you want, something that you can't do in real time.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#2
Posted 14 January 2005 - 06:12 PM
#3
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:07 PM
The main problem I have is does something like Grandia II fall into the turnbased or the combination camp? All it really is a realtime game with a prompt for actions. If you switched on the autotactics, it happily goes on it's own. It's a speed question really. Turn based combat takes longer to resolve. If there's something to keep you occupied (people running around, swinging lightsabers at each outher
I'd prefer to let each game stand on it's merits. There's space for all in my games library.
But if I have to vote it'll be for the choice system in fallout tactics (not technically an RPG, but you can play it however you choose).
This post has been edited by Laughlyn: 14 January 2005 - 07:09 PM
#4
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:13 PM
#5
Posted 14 January 2005 - 07:23 PM
#7
Posted 14 January 2005 - 08:57 PM
For anybody who values a good RTS/Ceaser Game, than RTW is for you. This game is just so damn good it hurts. Not to mention some evil genious made a MOD for that game that increased it's greatness to UBER AWESOME.
Rome total War. Play as the greeks, Romans, Thrascians, Ptolemies, Gaul, Germania, Iberia, Carthage, Briton and much much more.
Every nation has unique units and characteristics. The game will blow you out of your chair and make you want to come back for more.
Remember my Warcraft 3 obsession? Probably not, But RTW makes WC3 look like the winner of the suck best fest.
www.rometotalwar.com
#8
Posted 14 January 2005 - 10:37 PM
(Laughlyn suffers from lords of the realm 2 syndrome)
#9
Posted 16 January 2005 - 10:05 AM
On a related note, a friend of mine put forward the article that real time was more realistic then the 'combination' method in Baldur's Gate, as in a real battle you don't have time to stop and think about what spells you want to cast. My rebuttal was that a wizard memorizes x amount of spells per day, that they would be able to instantly cast any spell at their disposal. It's just I have to pause it as my reflexes are too slow(or the menu is to intricate). Any thoughts?
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#10
Posted 16 January 2005 - 12:31 PM
Oddly enough, when I played BG multiplayer the pause button was banned. My mates was using the mage and kept frying the paladin with stray fireballs. Caused many a fist fight I can tell you.....
#11
Posted 16 January 2005 - 12:53 PM
Anyone making games can contact me for purchase of this idea.
#12
Posted 16 January 2005 - 04:26 PM
#13
Posted 17 January 2005 - 06:31 AM
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#14
Posted 17 January 2005 - 03:07 PM
Not every character has spells. Some may only have attack. Or you could only put your most used spells there.
That was my point.
They would only have wacky colors when you hover over thier pics.
I'm not against the pause feature, just brainstorming.
#15
Posted 17 January 2005 - 07:10 PM
Some characters may only have attack, but they may have other moves\abilities (look at BG2) which you might need quick access to. Inventory items would need to be quick accessed as well.
Oh and the spell list was Simes point. Lots of spells and no time to select them. most used is fine, but when you need to pull that turn undead spell out of your back pocket after casting healing spells all day, you're gonna get creamed whilst in the menu.