Interview Age of Decadence - Big in France

[Eldritch]

I wonder if somebody soon will come out and say Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen have no tactics because they're real-time and then the ghost of Sun-Tzu will slap him.

 

[BethesdaLove]

So VD says TB is theoretically more tactical ergo intellectually challenging than RTwP?
Why? Because you have all the time to plan your actions?

 

[Vault Dweller]

I wonder if somebody soon will come out and say Shadow of the Horned Rat and Dark Omen have no tactics because they're real-time and then the ghost of Sun-Tzu will slap him.

Wasn't SotH a strategy wargame? As in you command an army, not a small band? As in not very relevant to this discussion? Before someone says "What about XCOM? Hmm?", XCOM mechanics are very close to an RPG. You don't control more than 12 units at a time.

 

[Eldritch]

I think that was more aimed at Skyway bullshitting about the Myth games.

Edit: Now that I'm reminded by Roxor's post, yeah, You actually don't control more than 12 units at a time in Dark Omen/SotHR. The "units" were "regiments" you controlled as a whole.

 

[Darth Roxor]

You don't control more than 12 units at a time.

Same applies for Dark Omen.

 

[MetalCraze]

Dissectin' yo post and responding to dozens of out of context quotes in a most retarded out of context way... How Skyway of you.

I didn't respond to anything out of context. Please show me which context did I so terribly missed?

Skyway you are so goddamn dumb and obviously haven't even played the game because the way you recalled that mission in my particular example is so obvious you don't know what the fuck you're talking about it hurts my mind.

Poor you. I didn't play that mission, because I got bored before reaching it obviously of course, my responce was based on your example which was basically telling that no matter what you do you still encounter the same things - and I in fact asked you to name the other way of winning that moment.
However

There is not any fucking OBVIOUS narrow corridor for you to ambush that army PATROLLING that goddamn road, there were a couple of forest/hill areas you COULD use as a not so perfect choke point. And if you did not position your army well out of the 20 different formation styles there or haven't set the satchel charges right or haven't figured out to keep your bait as a multiple squad that could at least hold the lightning FAST Myrmidons for a split second on the satchel charge area you are DEAD

So basically you are still describing me the exactly same way of winning this with the only alternative being - losing? That doesn't help you argument about non-linearity much.

BOTH APPROACHES ARE VIABLE, THEY WERE TWO(2) DIFFERENT WAYS TO WIN THAT MISSION ACCORDING TO YOUR SKILL.

So... 2 ways? And one way per mission corridor? Nice.

As for the fast enemies - we eventually got so bored that we launched the last level of the game in co-op - and still failed to find any "lightning fast" myrmidons. Or maybe at the hardest difficulty units move slower lawl?

No 1(ONE) forced approach, nothing heavily scripted, that Myrm. army is patrolling around that road, so the tactics of the former approach may even slightly vary in a replay. I usually played the game in the normal speed and those packs of Wights appearing too close to your army from their hiding positions under the murky swamp lake which makes their position INVISIBLE harder for me to deal with. See, If I were some crazy twitch-monkey I would have chosen to go through that swamp and evaded those motherfucking exploding wights coming out of nowhere. The missions are well designed in the Myth games.

Yes - two forced approaches it seems
So how about sneaking past those enemies without them noticing you and avoiding combat? Is it possible?
Or using some other way other than 2 corridors (I don't care if they are large)?
You try to prove me that those missions are so non-linear and not pre-scripted yet all your arguments are about how every single of them has the exactly same thing happening on them, and you also say

so the tactics of the former approach may even slightly vary in a replay

Which is exactly what I'm trying to tell you.
"slightly vary" is still basically "the same". You are basically saying that the missions will still go the same way.

And the way you summarized positioning and terrain objects&physics affecting the gameplay and allowing for a lot of tactical subtleties to "run and attack" made me paralyzed for a straight five minutes like one of those wights just exploded near me.

So uh... Tell me how terrain which affects visibility, higher terrain that gives advantage, units which are your typical RTS-limited types and arrows flying according to newtonian laws are something unique and unseen in RTS?

 

[Eldritch]

The Black Grail, FUCK YEAH. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Darth Roxor]

Poor you. I didn't play that mission

Which means, skyway didn't even get to the fifth mission out of twenty five.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So VD says TB is theoretically more tactical ergo intellectually challenging than RTwP?

Theoretically?

Anyway, let me play this old classic for you guys. It was a hit in 2002, maybe you'll like it.

Treatise on Combat to Pink Floyd

"And I pause for a while by a country stile - Real Time with Pause

Strengths - The addition of pausing to a RT combat system greatly reduces the reliance on any kind of manual dexterity on the players' behalf, and also is less limited by a need to streamline the HMI. Poor design is also more forgivable, due to the simultaneous actions allowing players to get through encounters that offer no challenge at a faster rate, as long as there aren't enforced round times.

Weaknesses - The very philosophy of adding a pause to a RT system is akin to whittling away the corners of a square peg so it fits in a round hole. It addresses the problem of difficulty interfacing in RT, but doesn't get to the root of the problem. In taking away a reliance on player dexterity, a challenge that is vital to RT systems is now gone. In order to effectively compensate for this, there needs to be a challenge in the tactical play, however, that too is compromised by the inability to effectively utilise terrain and cover, or attack while moving, which greatly limits many actions that would commonly take place within a real world tactical simulation. Also the nature of pausing to issue orders and then watching those orders get carried out seems entirely too passive, while on te flipside of the coin, you are constantly pausing which serves to eliminate most of the advantages of a RT system. So basically, taking a real-time system and adding pause comes with all the weaknesses of RT systems, few of the strengths, and is far outweighed by both TB and purely RT systems.

Myths -

"RT with pause has just as much underlying complexity as TB" - Sure, if both systems are exceedingly simple. TB permits the integration of many more features, and has less limiting factors. While RT systems with or without pause have many limitations imposed by their very nature, TB is limited only by the ability to maintain player interest.

"RT with pause is better because the player has control of it's pacing" - The player does get to control the pace of the combat, however the players ability to effectively judge and weigh up their own actions against those of their opponent is no longer carefully measured. If a similar system were introduced to the another essential RPG element that relies on discrete progression, ie levelling, the whole game would be worse off for it. If the player were able to develop their character at any time, without any measurement of level, the character system would seem diluted, and the reward/achievement of reaching the next level has gone by the wayside. There's no reason to view combat any differently. Surviving to the next turn can be an achievement in a difficult encounter, and most players derive a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that that all important next step of the way has been taken."

 

[MetalCraze]

Yes yes - games become better 5 minutes after I got tired of them / YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE THE GAME BECUZ YOU HAEVNT PLAID IT ENUFF

So the following things were happening only while I was playing the game and I haven't got to the best parts which are always five minutes after I get tired of the boring game?

There was a mission where you MUST go through arc where guards are sitting - there is no other way. You either kill them or they call for help which overwhelms you - and there is no other way.

There also was a mission where you had to kill guards in the fort - there was no other way to bypass them because there was only one entrance in the wall. So the only way to win the mission was to lure them on the mines of dwarves.
However before that you had to fight off two hordes of the enemies attacking from the forest. Every time. They started to magically attack you no matter what you do.

There also was a part of the mission where you have to sneak into the castle with the dwarf and open the castle door. There was only one possible road, no alternatives and enemies were in the same place, patrolling the same trajectory. No heavy scripts my ass.

Plus at some points enemies become magically aware of you and always attack you when you step on some trigger - and you always step on that trigger.

So we basically got bored with it and launched the last mission.
Every time at the very same places enemies were attacking us from the exactly same sides.

And everytime your units as well as the enemies moved so ridiculously slow that we eventually turned off the game after launching some more random missions (you do know that you can choose them in co-op right?)

My god - XCom with its randomly generated levels, units that can do more than move/attack, the ability to destroy every tile in the level, random aliens in random places is such a crap compared to the bastion of tactics that is Myth with its preset units at the beginning of the mission.
JA2 with its global AI that adjusts to player's actions, soldiers that can do many things and have different perks and traits and the freedom of movement that is more than just moving through 2 corridors filled with the same enemies is such a crap compared to the true game with tactical micromanagement that is Myth - where you can non-linearly pick from which side of the linear road you will kill the exactly same enemy that can't do anything but attack.
You guys just opened my eyes to the horrible truth.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yes yes - games become better 5 minutes after I got tired of them / YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE THE GAME BECUZ YOU HAEVNT PLAID IT ENUFF

So the following things were happening only while I was playing the game and I haven't got to the best parts which are always five minutes after I get tired of the boring game?

It's hard to say, since it's even hard to say how you even 'played' Myth when following your retarded posts. It all looks like you randomly picked off missions, looked at them for a minute or two and turned them off.

O SNAP, SCRIPTS

What will be the next thing you'll be whining about? That no matter what you do you have to kill the cyberdemon in Doom?

Also, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TOTALLY AVOID COMBAT IN MYTH.

And everytime your units as well as the enemies moved so ridiculously slow that we eventually turned off the game after launching some more random missions (you do know that you can choose them in co-op right?)

You do know that you can turn up the game speed, right?

Myth - where you can non-linearly pick from which side of the linear road you will kill the exactly same enemy that can't do anything but attack.

Complete and utter fucking bullshit. In many of the 'stealth' missions it's possible to go around a damn lot of enemy patrols. But hey, I suppose that taking a warrior right under the very noses of a patrol of 20 thralls that are walking in circles around a road and ordering him to dance means that you always activate a script that always makes you fight them.

 

[Jim Cojones]

There was a mission where you MUST go through arc where guards are sitting - there is no other way. You either kill them or they call for help which overwhelms you - and there is no other way.

There also was a mission where you had to kill guards in the fort - there was no other way to bypass them because there was only one entrance in the wall. So the only way to win the mission was to lure them on the mines of dwarves.
However before that you had to fight off two hordes of the enemies attacking from the forest. Every time. They started to magically attack you no matter what you do.

There also was a part of the mission where you have to sneak into the castle with the dwarf and open the castle door. There was only one possible road, no alternatives and enemies were in the same place, patrolling the same trajectory. No heavy scripts my ass.

That proves you're a liar. These missions aren't from Myth, but from the Myth II, which is dumbed down version of the first game.

 

[MetalCraze]

It's hard to say, since it's even hard to say how you even 'played' Myth when following your retarded posts.

That's strange - posts describe things in the game that I saw pretty fine I think (I even repeated one of them to help a fellow codexer with his reading problems) - unless you use the "fanboi-selective-reading". With it arguments that don't sound like you want them may sound retarded.

It all looks like you randomly picked off missions, looked at them for a minute or two and turned them off.

Why of course.

What will be the next thing you'll be whining about? That no matter what you do you have to kill the cyberdemon in Doom?

Nice argument there. Except Doom had more non-linear corridors than Myth - OH SNAP
So your point is?
Anyway maybe you will tell me what Eldricht couldn't with his butthurt bawwwing when I said that Myth is in no way a deep tactical game and is more like those prescripted missions in RTS and how it is different.
Right now all arguments that I had only prove my point.

You do know that you can turn up the game speed, right?

Yes - it didn't help.

Complete and utter fucking bullshit. In many of the 'stealth' missions it's possible to go around a damn lot of enemy patrols. But hey, I suppose that taking a warrior right under the very noses of a patrol of 20 thralls that are walking in circles around a road and ordering him to dance means that you always activate a script that always makes you fight them.

Because I can't bypass that place undetected unless the non pre-scripted game allows me to?
I still want to know what makes Myth such an outstanding tactical game that shines in comparison with other, better tactical games?

That proves you're a liar. These missions aren't from Myth, but from the Myth II, which is dumbed down version of the first game.

So how did I lie? Though I don't remember which game I was playing as it was a few years ago.
Myth2 and Myth1 aren't the same gameplay-wise? Please tell me how.

 

[elander_]

I think that XCom and JA2 is proof that for tactical combat that uses a party of 6-12 elements TB is the superior system. You can have RTwP systems try to imitate what these games do but they just play worse. You can't have a game like XCom or JA2 with RTwP. The game would be unplayable if you were attacked by 40+ npcs from every side like in JA2 and with XCom the player would be killed without even knowing what hit him.

 

[Darth Roxor]

 

[Eldritch]

:more dumb:

You haven't played that mission that was like the the 5th or 6th mission? (Nice...)

You're claiming there are no fast enemies, including the motherfucking MYRMIDONS? (I just can't wrap my mind around this. Why do you lie?)

You're claiming mind numbing bullshit after saying you haven't really played the game through?

Dear Skyway.

*You have CLAIMED in a post of yours. ITT. That there was only ONE VIABLE way to complete every single mission in the entire Myth game. And you haven't even properly played the entire Myth:TFL. I told you there actually were multiple ways to complete mission objectives and even provided you an example of it as best as I could.

Yes, the game is not a fucking Sandbox game that is completely open-ended with randomized missions every single time, but has well designed missions that offer multiple more conventional ways to go for the mission objectives and a lot more not so obvious and conventional crazy ways to win you discover and execute for awesomeness and more heroic victories. Maybe you would have discovered them if you actually played the goddamn game through. But you haven't. I meant the mechanics you have to exploit well with the terrain and the physics (arrow free-fall, grenade bouncing, using the high ground to your advantage, blocking sight radius, Weather conditions affecting your troops etc. etc. etc. fucking etc.) allowed for the designers to create multiple interesting situations you could use in slightly varying ways in *tactics* to win the objectives. You employ the varying tactics which are not always obvious to come up with and the mission allows you those well designed multiple ways for you to choose a more fitting *strategy* to execute whatever tactics you're good at as seen in the example I just gave in the form of either planning something smart or microing your way out of something else. Taking out those FAST Myrmidons required really good planning that could very well have failed if I didn't execute it well using all those mechanics I listed present in the game. I wasn't dumb. On the other hand the Wights on the other side of the map there pwn me if I coudn't micro well enough. I was a bit slow. I chose my approach according to my skill and won the mission. Two diverse *strategic* choices for you that leads to the win. You take whatever you think you'll pull through. Making the right choice is having a good strategy. How well you executed it is dependent on your grasp of tactics. And that was just one example, there were other missions that provided problems which could have been solved with even more crazier multiple methods. The game's not boring linear do-the-same-trick every time and you don't run out of the tomfoolery you could do for at least a couple of replays.

It's not railroading. The game doesn't have to be a totally non-linear Sandbox one you'll play forever. Stop bullshitting about games you haven't properly played through. I don't care about making a point or this silly TB-RT discussion. My problem is YOU bullshitting about a damn good game you haven't really even played through. Get it? Stop resorting to outright lying, you just haven't played the fucking game... Why don't you at least try actually playing the game properly this time and come back later.

Dear Skyway, my question to you is:

WHY YOU DO THIS ......... :<

 

[Eldritch]

Skyway, why don't you apply for a job over at the Escapist magazine. I hear they don't give a fuck if you haven't played the game you're reviewing for more than 30 minutes.

 

[MetalCraze]

you haven't even properly played the entire Myth series.

So properly played means what? I must complete both games and only then state my opinion?

but has well designed missions that offer multiple more conventional ways to go for the mission objectives and a lot more not so obvious and conventional crazy ways to win you discover and execute for awesomeness and more heroic victories

How about stopping being butthurt and giving a single example of a solution of the same situation a different way?
If you will provide me with at least one or two such examples I promise that I will play Myth more and after that write my opinion.

Maybe you would have discovered them if you actually played the goddamn game through. But you haven't. I meant the mechanics you have to exploit well with the terrain and the physics (arrow free-fall, grenade bouncing, using the high ground to your advantage, blocking sight radius, Weather conditions affecting your troops etc. etc. etc. fucking etc.)

So? Physics is a good thing sure. Weather and terrain too - but it isn't anything special in RTS games. Which I've already said that - why are you repeating it?

You employ the varying tactics which are not always obvious to come up with and the mission allows you those well designed multiple ways for you to choose a more fitting *strategy* to execute whatever tactics you're good at as seen in the example I just gave in the form of either planning something smart or microing your way out of something else.

Yes - your examples so far - either do it this way or go away.
Please examples of these multiple ways, I'm growing tired with waiting for an example other than Oblivion's "do this quest/go away".

micro

Again what micro Myth series have?

Two diverse *strategic* choices for you that leads to the win.

Choices? "Move this way and do/encounter exactly this or move that way and do/encounter exactly that"
Can't you give me a better argument that this? A good tactical game as I've said lets you have different approaches to the exactly same situation - I'm still waiting for an example of this. Letting you go two different roads that still throw at you same things is not that.

My problem is YOU bullshitting about a damn good game you haven't really even played through. Get it? Stop resorting to outright lying, you just haven't played the fucking game...

Oh for fuck's sake

Skyway, why don't you apply for a job over at the Escapist magazine. I hear they don't give a fuck if you haven't played the game you're reviewing for more than 30 minutes.

We've played it for 4+ hours. We have to re-do some missions because not all were easy to complete from the first try. So yep we were replaying the same mission a second or a third time - on a hardest difficulty. We've completed the first 4 missions and then 3 (or more) of them from the different parts of the game randomly. ~7 missions of course are not enough and of course the game turns good always five minutes after I stop playing, right?

 

[BethesdaLove]

I think that XCom and JA2 is proof that for tactical combat that uses a party of 6-12 elements TB is the superior system. You can have RTwP systems try to imitate what these games do but they just play worse. You can't have a game like XCom or JA2 with RTwP. The game would be unplayable if you were attacked by 40+ npcs from every side like in JA2 and with XCom the player would be killed without even knowing what hit him.

That is what I was getting at. But VD seems to lead a crusade against RTwP.

Weaknesses - The very philosophy of adding a pause to a RT system is akin to whittling away the corners of a square peg so it fits in a round hole.

Actually, wouldnt it be more like adding material to a round peg so it fits tight in a square hole? But it is semantics though here it is used against RTwP.

... doesn't get to the root of the problem.

As I understand it the root of the problem is the human factor created by time constraints in pure RT.

In taking away a reliance on player dexterity, a challenge that is vital to RT systems is now gone. In order to effectively compensate for this, there needs to be a challenge in the tactical play, however, that too is compromised by the inability to effectively utilise terrain and cover...

Now as Naked Ninja said, this is a system question. Cover in BG can be a wall. Terrain plays no role as in "normal" terrain. Magically enchanced (Webs and shit) on the other hand does. Right now I am playing COTA. Terrain - check. Cover - check. RTwP.

...or attack while moving, which greatly limits many actions that would commonly take place within a real world tactical simulation.

So he is specifically talking about RPG and sprites as implementation? Because COTA...

Also the nature of pausing to issue orders and then watching those orders get carried out seems entirely too passive

I dont get that one.

while on te flipside of the coin, you are constantly pausing which serves to eliminate most of the advantages of a RT system.

Again. Its semantics. The pause is introduced to eliminate the disadvantages of RT, the root of the problem as he said it, the human factor, not the advantages. Because RT has only the dex challenge as advantage and exactly that we dont want. The speed advantage, when you up against some enemies who are easy and you dont need to think to beat them, we keep.

So basiclly adding Pause comes with all the weaknesses of RT systems, few of the strengths, and is far outweighed by both TB and purely RT systems.

Why is it full of rhetorics?
So basiclly adding Pause comes with no weaknesses of RT systems (human factor that we dont want), few of the strengths (speedy small fihgts, dex challenge if wanted), and outweighes both TB and purely RT systems.

"RT with pause has just as much underlying complexity as TB" - Sure, if both systems are exceedingly simple. TB permits the integration of many more features, and has less limiting factors. While RT systems with or without pause have many limitations imposed by their very nature, TB is limited only by the ability to maintain player interest.

This one is just a statement made by him. I would like some examples and will provide counters if possible.

"RT with pause is better because the player has control of it's pacing" - The player does get to control the pace of the combat, however the players ability to effectively judge and weigh up their own actions against those of their opponent is no longer carefully measured.

Why not?

If a similar system were introduced to the another essential RPG element that relies on discrete progression, ie levelling, the whole game would be worse off for it. If the player were able to develop their character at any time, without any measurement of level, the character system would seem diluted, and the reward/achievement of reaching the next level has gone by the wayside. There's no reason to view combat any differently. Surviving to the next turn can be an achievement in a difficult encounter, and most players derive a great deal of satisfaction from the knowledge that that all important next step of the way has been taken."

This is a bit offtopic but nonetheless is that not a matter of taste? He talks about "most players" like he asked them.

 

[Jim Cojones]

Myth2 and Myth1 aren't the same gameplay-wise? Please tell me how.

- most enemies in Myth II are slightly slower than the same units (or their equivalents) in the predecessor,

- in The Fallen Lords every your unit is doing exactly what you tell them, while in The Soulbligter AI helps you a lot. This mean that in the first game to throw a grenade at the group of enemies you have to place your dwarf well, estimate his range and time of throw to success. The same situation in the sequel requires only clicking on the enemies and the game will do everything for you,

- less linear map design in TFL,

- enemies try to attack you from different sides, so you have to be very careful. Ghols in Myth are especially annoying - they're easily slain by warriors, but there are times when you're doing your best to destroy two big groups of enemies approaching from two sides and you think that you're close to success, while you're realising that you allowed two - three ghols to come from behind and get close to your bowmen and you probably lose most of them. I don't recall such situations in the sequel,

- number of enemies in one group is usually smaller in Myth II, so it's generally easier to kill them without thinking of some smart manoeuvre.

I was recently replaying both games. I started both at the highest difficulty. In TFL I was butchered at first level, what forced me to start game at lower difficulty. In the sequel I killed almost all the enemies with just one unit, while all my other man were standing

 

[Eldritch]

Communication Breakdown.

 

[MetalCraze]

Myth2 and Myth1 aren't the same gameplay-wise? Please tell me how.

- most enemies in Myth II are slightly slower than the same units (or their equivalents) in the predecessor,

- in The Fallen Lords every your unit is doing exactly what you tell them, while in The Soulbligter AI helps you a lot. This mean that in the first game to throw a grenade at the group of enemies you have to place your dwarf well, estimate his range and time of throw to success. The same situation in the sequel requires only clicking on the enemies and the game will do everything for you,

- less linear map design in TFL,

- enemies try to attack you from different sides, so you have to be very careful. Ghols in Myth are especially annoying - they're easily slain by warriors, but there are times when you're doing your best to destroy two big groups of enemies approaching from two sides and you think that you're close to success, while you're realising that you allowed two - three ghols to come from behind and get close to your bowmen and you probably lose most of them. I don't recall such situations in the sequel,

- number of enemies in one group is usually smaller in Myth II, so it's generally easier to kill them without thinking of some smart manoeuvre.

I was recently replaying both games. I started both at the highest difficulty. In TFL I was butchered at first level, what forced me to start game at lower difficulty. In the sequel I killed almost all the enemies with just one unit, while all my other man were standing

Hm, thanks. Though I didn't notice that the number of enemies on the latter levels was small. On the hardest difficulty several dozens of them attacking you at the same time was a norm. I kinda liked how it was ok for the ground to be covered with bodies. However other than that the game didn't impress me.
So basically as I take it the differences are that Myth2 is easier and maps are simpler - but I remember that I've noticed some enemies coming from behind when we were dealing with hordes coming from the other side.

 

[elander_]

That is what I was getting at. But VD seems to lead a crusade against RTwP.

What exactly? I agree with VD that if you want tactics there's nothing we know that works as well as TB. The system is important. When they made XCom and JA2 they could have made these games with a RTwP system but they didn't because it would be too limited.

 

[Eldritch]

@Skyway

You were talking about Myth 2 ??? God I want to kill myself right now my nerdrage has taken over. Why the hell did you refer to it as "Myth" only then?

Soulblighter had some good missions too later in the game but TFL is the real deal.

 

[MetalCraze]

I truly don't remember which game I've played as it was few years ago and both Myths visually look the same. I wrote that in a post on the previous page actually.