Interview Age of Decadence - Big in France

[Vault Dweller]

I've played Shadow and Dark Omen a long time ago. I barely remember them. Mistakenly or not, these games didn't produce strong "holy shit tactics!" impressions. XCOM did, which is why the game has a permanent space on my hard drive.

That doesn't have much to do with what I asked. Care to address that as well, namely how X-COM's tactical aspect might be applied to RPGs, whereas Warhammer 1/2's tactical aspects can not?

Like I said, I don't remember these games well, so *I* am not in position to make any statements about these games. I thought they were more strategic than tactical. Apparently, that's not the case and they are every bit as good and tactical as XCOM, in which case their mechanics can probably be applied to RPGs.

"Are there RT/RTwP games that are as tactical as XCOM?"

Yes.

Namely?

Heart of Fury mode in IWD 1 is pretty damn tactical - or at least very strategic.

Well, HoF I remember well. Pretty damn tactical it's not. You can't beat the game by clicking on random enemies and casting spells with highest damage, but if Jagged Alliance is 10, HoF is 2-3 at best. It's a difficult game because all enemies have a lot more HPs, so you have to pay attention to all options. The options are very limited, unfortunately, which limits the tactics.

Maybe you should play them again, VD.

That's the plan.

Why am I being ignored by VD? I wrote a fucking novel rigth there.

I was busy and you did write a novel. Will reply tonight.

Btw, if someone wants to try Dark Omen, here is a 10 MB demo:
http://www.fileplanet.com/11575/10000/f ... -Dark-Omen

 

[Volourn]

"Namely?"

No need to post them 'cause any I put forth you will just trash. *shrug*

They exist though but don't worry your delusional little brains over it as imaginating that TB games are so 'intellectually challenging' (LOL LOLO LOLOLOLOL) is humourous to those of us with common sense that 'intellectually challenging' has NOTHING to do with whether or not a game is Tb, RT, pause n play, or whatever other crap one spouts.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Namely?"

No need to post them 'cause any I put forth you will just trash. *shrug*

We can't have that, can we?

They exist in my mind...

Fixed.

... imaginating ....

Imaginating?

that TB games are so 'intellectually challenging' ...

Did I actually say that? Or you are imaginating it?

 

[Jasede]

I suppose we disagree in some manner. I'd call HoF very tactical because you have to use all sorts of spells to debilitate enemies, and have to make some serious choices about what party you take, how you equip it and how you use their spells and abilities.

I do admit I may be misunderstanding the word "tactical" - which to my knowledge means to take the best possible actions in a given battle. How come using cover in X-Com, gauging if you ought to Auto-Shot that enemy, or use an Aimed Shot, pondering what enemy to mind-control and where to throw a grenade is different from using Entangle, Web and Grease in Icewind Dale to hold the five ogres at bay while using spell to increase the Paladin's Armor Class even further while carefully maneuvering him around so the archers can stay their distance?

Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat, as well as battles in Shogun and Medieval are to me the very definition of tactics: using your units and abilities to their best potential to overcome the enemy. This happens in both strategy games (Age of Empires, Starcraft), tactics games (Panzer General, Shadow of the Horned Rat, X-Com) and in RPGs (Wizardry 8, ToEE, and to me at least, IWD HoF mode (not going to argue that normal mode is anything but mindless bashing; I'd agree to that)).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Wouldn't you agree that HoF would have been a lot more tactical if it was TB and you were able to focus on one character at a time?

As for XCOM vs HoF, different positions, attack options, plenty of cover + destructible environment, and lack of HP behemoths made XCOM infinitely more tactical.

 

[almondblight]

How did this discussion start? I made a bold claim that TB is more tactical than all RT varieties combined and then all BG2 faggots started jumping up and down and screaming LEAVE RT ALONE!!!!, while wiping away tears. So, every point made in this thread, including the dangerous generic enemies one, was in regard to tactics. Since people argued that everything that makes JA2 and XCOM awesome could be found in RT in general and such tactical hits as BG2 and IWD2, I could only assume that these games are on tactical par with JA2 and XCOM.

No?

No. People argued that one of the things that made X-Com awesome - how strong the generic enemies are - can be found in RT games as well. You were the one that said that must make them as tactical as X-Com (see your posts regarding this). I can think TB is always better than RT, but still think the generic enemies reason is BS.

Case in point, my first battle in IWD (first battle I ever had in the Infinity Engine games). I had two thoughts:

1. How the hell did those goblins kill my entire party and I only kill one of them?

2. This combat system sucks (not because of the difficulty, because of the general crappiness of Infinity Engine games)

Since the first one means that the IE games had dangerous generic enemies, and two means that dangerous generic enemies don't make the combat great (though the combat later grew on me), I think "turn based has dangerous enemies, that's why turn based rocks!" is a BS argument.

Though I think the dangerous enemies in the IE games did make the game play better. A better example of no. 2 is Fallout, where many of the dangerous enemies (like mutants) merely meant a reload fest.

 

[almondblight]

As for XCOM vs HoF, different positions, attack options, plenty of cover + destructible environment, and lack of HP behemoths made XCOM infinitely more tactical.

But which of those can not be done in RT?

 

[Vault Dweller]

You can't control 12 units at the same time AS effectively as you can control one unit at a time. Simple as that.

Edit: we were talking about tactical options there.

 

[Murk]

On a slightly unrelated note: Jasede, I recently went through your LP of Dark Omen and was utterly dumbfounded how good you were doing and how few your losses were. I tried to get it to work on xp for me but failed... yet strangely got Shadow of the Horned Rat to work. I was nearly crying at some of the levels, especially the first one with that damn dragon. I had taken heinous casualities in the multi-mission orc campaign before and the damn thing ate me alive.

 

[Jasede]

Can you believe there's some people calling SotHR easy and DO hard? They must be some kind of super genius people. SotHR made me cry as a kid.

 

[Murk]

The tiny battlefield view alone made me want to rip my eyes out, but god did I endure. I gotta find a way to get DO working...

 

[Jasede]

All I remember is that you have to find a version with a registry fixer, to change some registry keys... I think I linked to it in the thread... somewhere. I pretty much only got it to work through sheer luck and trial and error myself, so I don't remember.

 

[Murk]

Yar, I'll probably give it another swing as soon as I can find a copy of DO somewhere. Have you thought about doing a LP of SotHR? The game was like a lighte version of Iron-Man, Tin-Man if you will. You could really fuck yourself over badly if you continued a mission-chain with heavy casualties...

 

[almondblight]

You can't control 12 units at the same time AS effectively as you can control one unit at a time. Simple as that.

Somewhat agree (only somewhat though), but I'm not sure it's a bad thing*. See: Combat Mission for a game where less effective control actually makes the game a bit better.

*I generally think it is, but there are cases where it doesn't have to be.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

Lack of effective control, as described by VD, is what distracting me of further playing BG2. But back in the day, when i played JA2 - it was hard, but i was super motivated to try out other tactics, see how the actions plays out and control the situation. Even if i was getting pwned all the time i still enjoyed the "controled trials/playouts".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Section8: 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.
Me: 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.
VD:(...) So, in essence, RTwP is a bastard child that lacks the complexity of TB systems and lacks the excitement and thinking on the fly of RT systems.

I just dont understand what the reason is for RTWP to lack complexity?

Then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.

Basically, being able to focus on one unit at a time, going through all options and scenarios, is a lot more complex (and less chaotic) than dealing with all units at the same time. Yes, RTwP allows you to stop gameplay and issue orders, but once unpaused, you lose control again. So, like I said, it's not as complex (read control heavy) as TB, and it's not as fast and exciting in a "you better think fast, boy" as RT.

Me:
As I understand it the root of the problem is the human factor created by time constraints in pure RT.
VD:
No.
Here is the Shadow of the Horned Rat walkthrough:
http://www.thecomputershow.com/computer ... hrwalk.htm
Some quotes showing why TB is better than RT
walkthrough"Turn off the AI for your defensive units, so they don't engage too soon. Once a formation is broken it's difficult to put back together in the heat of battle."

Me:So the AI is the problem not the RTWP, since the advice works. And the point of breaking formations is the difficulty of putting them back together...

The problem is RTwP because TB units don't require AI (since you're doing all the thinking for them). RT units do and since AI can't come close to even a 10 year old level...

walkthrough"You can't micromanage everything on the battlefield..."

Me:Why not? Its tedious but you have the time. You are going away from my point that RTWP is as tactical as TB on a small scale like in BG with this example though.

No. Think about it. You either control one unit at a time or all units simultaneously. You can't claim that the level of control is the same. Look at it this way: what's more effective? A teacher working with one child or the same teacher working with 8-12 kids?

walkthrough"The Dwarf Gyrocopters are worthless without constant personal attention..."

Me:So what? In TB its ok to give personal attention to every unit but in RTWP its not?

You clearly don't understand.

Me: See, thats your mistake. Its a question of implementation. Ill make an example. Imagine TOEE in RTWP. Everything is the same except you have a general speed instead of your action points and it would work the same. It pauses when you see enemy. Has artificial turns like in BG that take 5 seconds each. And so on. The Infinity Engine system. Add a queue for actions like in Close Combat/COTA. Add something like terrain-tiles that lower or increase your AC or whatever and you get even more options. Would it be less tactical?

Yes. Like I said, you just don't understand the combat modes. Reread Section8's - who used to teach game design, btw - article. This time, try to understand his points instead of reading and dismissing.

Section8: Also the nature of pausing to issue orders and then watching those orders get carried out seems entirely too passive
Me: I dont get that one.
VD:See above. You issue orders and then watch the combat for a few minutes. In the Infinity Engine games there are very few battles that require your undivided attention and constant pausing. I'd say that you watch 75% of RTwP combat instead of playing it.
Me: So its the designers fault that the battles are not challenging for you. Not RTWP.

See, you just don't understand. If battles are challenging and you pause all the time, then there is no reason for the game not be turn-based. If a game is not very challenging and you pause rarely, then it might as well be RT.

Anyway, with all due respect, there is no reason to reply to the rest of your points. You didn't address Section8's points calling them semantics and you didn't address mine, drawing silly conclusions because you just can't see (or don't want to see) what I'm trying to show you.

Since I'm not on a mission to convert everyone into TB fans, I'm perfectly ok with you being crazy about RTwP.

 

[Vault Dweller]

On a slightly unrelated note: Jasede, I recently went through your LP of Dark Omen ...

Great LP, indeed. Thumbs up, Jas. Helped me remember.

The game is a lot more strategic than tactical (XCOM is the opposite). While you do control the same number of units as in XCOM and you do have xp and such, the focus is on the big picture. You see the entire battlefield, the movement speed is slow (which gives you enough time to react and maneuver), and terrain plays a large role. XCOM is focused on a much smaller "up close and personal" picture. That's the difference. That's why it's similar to RPGs and that's why Dark Omen and Shadow of the Horned Rat aren't.

Anyway, let's say that it's not that different and that DO's mechanics can be converted into the RPG format. The next question is "would they be more tactical in turn-based?" Now, I'll replay DO when I have a chance (and a PC with Win 95; I think I have a couple of old boxes at work), but let's settle it now and end this discussion.

Jasede, I choose you! You are an honest sort and you've played Dark Omen so well in that thread, so let's make it your call. In your honest opinion, would Dark Omen be more tactical if it was turn-based? If you answer "no", I'll never claim that RT is inferior to TB again. How is that?

 

[Volourn]

"Basically, being able to focus on one unit at a time, going through all options and scenarios, is a lot more complex (and less chaotic) than dealing with all units at the same time. Yes, RTwP allows you to stop gameplay and issue orders, but once unpaused, you lose control again. So, like I said, it's not as complex (read control heavy) as TB, and it's not as fast and exciting in a "you better think fast, boy" as RT."

Seriously, are you drunk? That is just beyond retarded. How can such a dummy apprantly be responsible for a game that looks to be as good as AOD seems to be? OMFG

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well, not everyone is as smart as you are, Volly. Sad, but true. I'm always eager to learn something new though, and will appreciate an explanation.

 

[Volourn]

How is dealing with one character at a time MORE complex than dealing with multiple characters at the same time? The logic there doesn't make sense.

It's like saying a one on one debate, say in a private chat, is 'more complex' than a thread dealing with various people's opinions on the same subject.

Afterall, one of the things people - including you - bash NWN1 for - is that since you only control one character directly unlike BG where you control multi characters and that somehow makes BG2 more 'complex' even though NWN gives you more options (tatical or otherwise) comapred to its Aurora counterparts.

And, oh, real time games with multiple characters can easily be more complex than turn based single character games. In fact, logic dictates they are, since there's usually gonna be more variables involved. Not only do you have to deal with avrious options with more than one character you have to use your brain, and not waste time. Never heard of ther expression 'thinking on your feet'? In fact, it's a sign of intelligence when you can process thinks quicker than others.

TB, being as stagnant as it is, is the style for the retarded, as it gives you unlimited time to think of a solution and perform it. That doens't make it harder. That makes it easier.

Why do you think a 'thinking game show' like Jeopardy is done in 'real time'? *shrug*

 

[Kingston]

Tacticalness aside, I think making DO turn-based would certainly take a lot of the fun out. Making a dynamic battle-plan while under pressure is great fun.

Would it become less tactical if time weren't a resource? You have to decide which units you are focusing on. You need to give some units more broad instructions so that you can concentrate on a more critical area. You need to position your units in a manner that they can hold up for a while without your direction. In a game without pause, time is a resource that needs to be balanced, which is what makes RTwP a bit shite. In turn-based, this resource is lacking.

I await Jasede's decision.

 

[Vault Dweller]

How is dealing with one character at a time MORE complex than dealing with multiple characters at the same time? The logic there doesn't make sense.

Dealing with one character at a time in itself is not more complex. Gameplay, such approach creates, is more complex, because it allows you to utilize each character's skills and ability with precision that can't be duplicated in RT.

It's like saying a one on one debate, say in a private chat, is 'more complex' than a thread dealing with various people's opinions on the same subject.

It is. It's much easier to lock your opponent in and tear his position apart one argument after another when other people don't get in the way.

Afterall, one of the things people - including you - bash NWN1 for - is that since you only control one character directly ...

Never bashed it for this, but if you have a link handy, let's see it.

TB, being as stagnant as it is, is the style for the retarded, as it gives you unlimited time to think of a solution and perform it. That doens't make it harder. That makes it easier.

Ha, I say. Ha!

Why do you think a 'thinking game show' like Jeopardy is done in 'real time'? *shrug*

What a silly analogy. Jeopardy isn't a thinking game show. It's a "who knows this shit" show, and because it's not a thinking game show and measures how quickly you can remember X if at all, it's RT.

 

[Hamster]

Tabletop Warhammer is turned based and much more tactical than DO. And since turned based DO can be made to be just a copy of tabletop game...

 

[Vault Dweller]

That's what I think too, but let's wait and see what Jasede will say.

 

[Murk]

I remember Jasede saying, in the same thread as the LP foir that matter, that the game being real time makes it slightly more tactical as it requires you to make "on the fly" decisions, which in war, are pretty crucial.

You cannot issue orders while the game is paused, I don't think you can even view the map, all you can do is resume.

This means that in this game you are required to think fast, and something like seeing enemy cavalry charging your stationary mortars can suddenly make you act rashly and end up botching your archers' shot or troops movement.

However I think it's not accurate to extrapolate the effect real time gameplay has on Dark Omen to an RPG considering that the gameplay is indeed RTS. The result of what KIND of tactical gameplay you get would hinge on the mechanics. Let's say it was turn based, your gameplay would probably have more tactical options as I'm sure they'd include something other than "attack or don't attack" as your only options... but the kind of tactics you'd have wouldn't be the same as what you get in real time.

Example: In baldur's gate you can lob a fireball while in range of its blast and outrun the effect... in temple of elemental evil you cannot and are forced to eat it. Toee is the more tactical game but the kind of tactics you can use are different in the two.

Having said that, I would say that in the LP of Dark Omen Jasede outlined both strategy and tactics... his strategy was to deploy his cavalry as the main force and have the archers/cannon work as a decoy while softening the enemy up for a finishing route by the cavalry... his tactics were when he had his archers melee enemies from behind while his cavalry occupied their attention... or when he had his wizard randomly stop what he was doing to assist his troops that were under attack.

The game features both obviously..

Anyway, I apologize if I seem to have put words in Jas' mouth, that was just my own 0.02.