Game News Pillars of Eternity Released

[Sensuki]

I do remember quotes about that. What he has created is something where most decision making in combat outside of what ability to use next and who to select is irrelevant. Combat is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more stacked onto pre-positioning and encounter strategy than ever. Not even different encounter strategies either, most of the time you do exactly the same thing over and over again.

At least in the Infinity Engine games, the option to play ad hoc was there and was not punished by the gameplay systems. I basically never sat there pre-buffing except for only the toughest fights - which is how I like it.

Maybe his definition of tactical is following a rote sequence in combat, I dunno.

 

[Blaine]

And you have never tasted a proper RTwP game.

Indeed I have. I played Secret of Mana in 1994 after my sister and I got a Super Nintendo for Christmas that year.

Stop hiding behind the existence of RTS games in which commands can be issued when the game is paused. The majority of those games are eminently playable without pausing, or only pausing rarely, which is demonstrably untrue of party-based tactical games in which split-second, moment-to-moment decisions must constantly be made. Many players will spend as much, if not more time with the game paused while playing PoE or BG2 than they do with it unpaused. Pause, unpause, pause, unpause, pause, unpause, and meanwhile you have imperfect and imprecise control of your characters as a group unless you're extremely dedicated to micromanagement. I've watched it in your videos, and I've experienced it myself playing many of the very same games you've played, probably for about as long as you've played them, on balance.

I've never played a proper RTwP game (in the context of complex, tactical, party- or squad-based games, or similar) because there's no such thing, and there never will be... except for Freedom Force, apparently, which I suppose I should replay for curiosity's sake. There certainly are loads of right and proper turn-based games, it's just that most of them are missing an element or two to exactly match them to a hypothetical TB IE-style game. Underrail is missing a party-based dynamic, ToEE is missing a story or any kind of plot, Jagged Alliance 2 is only an honorary cRPG, the Tactics Ogres and Fire Emblems of the world are uguu kawaii desu desu ne, et cetera and so on.

My opinion, boiled down to its essence, is this: If constant pausing is necessary, then the game should be turn-based, phase-based, or similar. If pausing is never needed, only occasionally needed, or optional, then the game should be real-time or RTwP. Really, RTwP hardly even deserves or requires its own classification.

The IE games, every single one, are all turn-based games trying to pretend to be real-time games.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Blaine
There is nothing stopping Sawyer and CO from making a proper real-time tactical game that requires very little pausing and adding pause on top of that, for players who are slow.

 

[Blaine]

There is a certain threshold of complexity past which no real-time, moment-to-moment tactical game can realistically go, especially one in which multiple squad/party members can be directly and precisely controlled. During the time a player spends directing two or three units, it's not possible to also be directing the other two or three units. Those units can only follow previous orders or some automation scheme. Turn-based systems allow for total control of each unit, no matter how many abilities or options they have available, no matter how complicated the game mechanics, and no matter how rapidly combat plays out.

Regardless of how good at a multitasking a player is or how quick-thinking they are, there are limitations. The easiest way to ease these limitations is to pace a game in a stately manner and scale upward, so that it doesn't proceed in moment-to-moment increments. This is why RTS works well in real-time, and why grand strategy games and games like Homeworld are a good fit for RTwP.

Do you propose that it's possible to create a fully real-time JA2 or X-COM, without sacrificing any of their depth, complexity, or the criticality of every split-second decision?

 

[Sensuki]

I pause a lot more in Pillars of Eternity than I do in the IE games (except for the BG2 boss fights etc). You have to make sure that you don't proc disengagement attacks and every class potentially has a lot of active abilities.

I do think they went overboard, particularly with the use of per encounters which add a lot to the need to pause to target them (woulda been easier with innate hotkeys and the ability to cycle through party members with one key like TAB in WC3 or something) and that's one of the things I mean about designing copy-paste from turn-based TT systems.

BG2 requires more constant pausing only in the tougher battles.

Blaine Was it you who made the troll video of my very first Pillars of Eternity video where I paused like a million times? That was literally the first video of the game I ever made, was unfamiliar with the game systems/spells and everything and that particular version had very buggy beetle DoT damage and really high per-hit damage from enemies in general so it did require a bit more pausing back in the beta.

Turn-based systems allow for total control of each unit, no matter how many abilities or options they have available and no matter how complicated the game mechanics.

Turn-based systems also take away simultaneous unit action. Pause is an easy way to take the stress off managing a party-based real-time game where there's some active ability use required. One of the problems Pillars of Eternity (and the IE games) have is that they either lack or have rudimentary implementations of controls/UI which more recent RTS games have implemented that make managing multiple units easier. Abilities in Pillars of Eternity do not have innate hotkeys, neither does the action bar, and you also cannot cycle through selected units with a single key like you can in say, Warcraft 3.

I don't think BG2 went over the top with the amount of micromanagement or pause required, I think it found a pretty good medium. The tough fights that require a lot of pausing (think Final Seal Guardians) are super super fun. Pillars of Eternity goes a bit overboard with the rote repetitiveness of per-encounter abilities and stuff like that. The game always had pacing issues as well, right from the first beta. They never got it right. Combat ends too quickly which adds to the importance of pausing, because you don't want to skip a beat. I harped on about it all the way through and others agreed, but there were also others saying "it's fine", so the only thing they did was add a global recovery speed slow of x1.2 and ignored everything else we were saying.

Aarklash Legacy is a more recent game that I think has good combat pace. It has a four person party with a few active abilities each and a cooldown system, with intuitive RTS style controls. Unfortunately the game is very repetitive, but it's very tactical and requires reactions from the player quite often. If it wasn't such a boring MMO HP slog with a shit inventory system (passive bonuses only), it probably would have been a good game.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I remember having this discussion when I first joined the dex. Also that even then it was not a new one. I think the whole is turn based better than RT discussion is one of those enduring, unresolvable arguments that will keep going on a billion years into the future and probably started a billion years in the past on the cyloncodex. The arguments always seem to amount to 1) turn-based does provide opportunities for more complex tactical thinking on a choice by choice basis but 2) RTwP requires a different, yet equally rewarding, kind of tactical thinking in order to manage multiple decisions simultaneously.

 

[Blaine]

Blaine Was it you who made the troll video of my very first Pillars of Eternity video where I paused like a million times?

No.

I'm starting to realize that we agree with each other, in a certain sense. Your focus on aspects of RTS as examples of the direction RTwP should be headed in can be reasonably interpreted as a desire for the sort of games we're discussing to be designed as either fully real-time or fully turn-based (or perhaps phase-based), rather than some bastardized combination of the two.

Also, "simultaneous unit action" isn't really necessary and doesn't add as much as some people seem to think it does.

 

[Blaine]

I remember having this discussion when I first joined the dex. Also that even then it was not a new one. I think the whole is turn based better than RT discussion is one of those enduring, unresolvable arguments that will keep going on a billion years into the future and probably started a billion years in the past on the cyloncodex. The arguments always seem to amount to 1) turn-based does provide opportunities for more complex tactical thinking on a choice by choice basis but 2) RTwP requires a different, yet equally rewarding, kind of tactical thinking in order to manage multiple decisions simultaneously.

I gave inXile an extra $1,000 when turn-based won the community poll (edit: for T:ToN), then basked in the resultant anguish of Biodrones and Obsidrones. Some of them were threatening to withdraw their pledges and/or complain to consumer rights advocacy groups... oh, it was glorious.

 

[Athelas]

Also, "simultaneous unit action" isn't really necessary and doesn't add as much as some people seem to think it does.

You mean besides completely changing the way combat plays out?

 

[Blaine]

You mean besides completely changing the way combat plays out?

"Playing out differently" is neither inherently inferior nor inherently superior in this case. A lack of simultaneous action resolution doesn't take anything away from JA2, for example. I doubt anyone who played it earnestly found themselves thinking, "God damn, I wish this game had simultaneous action resolution!"

Real-time games (usually) have simultaneous action resolution, turn-based games don't, phased-based games often do, and they all play differently as a result, but simultaneous action resolution or the lack thereof is a neutral. Its importance is strangely inflated in the minds of many.

I personally can't even finish this sentence: "Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." Perhaps someone can finish it for me. It's practically a nonentity in my mind, a neutral as I've previously stated, neither good nor bad.

 

[tuluse]

"Playing out differently" is neither inherently inferior nor inherently superior in this case. A lack of simultaneous action resolution doesn't take anything away from JA2, for example. I doubt anyone who played it earnestly found themselves thinking, "God damn, I wish this game had simultaneous action resolution!"

Real-time games (usually) have simultaneous action resolution, turn-based games don't, phased-based games often do, and they all play differently as a result, but simultaneous action resolution or the lack thereof is a neutral. Its importance is strangely inflated in the minds of many.

I personally can't even finish this sentence: "Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." Perhaps someone can finish it for me. It's practically a nonentity in my mind.

A lot of people complain about sequential resolution because "my characters can't do anything about being attacked".

"Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." there are no risk free attacks

"Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." it simulates battlefield chaos better

 

[Blaine]

"Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." there are no risk free attacks

Have any of you actually played X-COM? Be honest. "Risk-free attacks," that's a good one.

"Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." it simulates battlefield chaos better

"It's more realistic this way" is a pillar of the decline. This is known.

 

[Athelas]

You mean besides completely changing the way combat plays out?

"Playing out differently" is neither inherently inferior nor inherently superior in this case. A lack of simultaneous action resolution doesn't take anything away from JA2, for example. I doubt anyone who played it earnestly found themselves thinking, "God damn, I wish this game had simultaneous action resolution!"

Real-time games (usually) have simultaneous action resolution, turn-based games don't, phased-based games often do, and they all play differently as a result,

Sure, which is why your post was so bizarre - simultaneous conflict resolution adds nothing...besides completely changing the mechanics of combat apparently. Glad that you agree.

Turn-based games also abstract real-time elements, like with JA2's interrupts.

but simultaneous action resolution or the lack thereof is a neutral. Its importance is strangely inflated in the minds of many.

I personally can't even finish this sentence: "Simultaneous action resolution is good because...." Perhaps someone can finish it for me. It's practically a nonentity in my mind, a neutral as I've previously stated, neither good nor bad.

I wasn't actually advocating any system, that's what you seem to have read in my post. Still, simultaneous actions can allow for all sorts of interesting scenarios, that's fairly obvious. Did you never experience a character being struck by fear and throwing your battle plans in mayhem in the IE games, running right into the AoE's your wizard was casting, or anything like that?

 

[tuluse]

Have any of you actually played X-COM? Be honest. "Risk-free attacks," that's a good one.

Yes, you can definitely get risk free attacks. A single enemies don't have enough reaction fire to kill all your guys. Once their spent, you are free to attack.

"It's more realistic this way" is a pillar of the decline. This is known.

Good thing that wasn't my argument then.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Was it you who made the troll video of my very first Pillars of Eternity video where I paused like a million times? That was literally the first video of the game I ever made, was unfamiliar with the game systems/spells and everything and that particular version had very buggy beetle DoT damage and really high per-hit damage from enemies in general so it did require a bit more pausing back in the beta.

He didn't make the video, he just used one of yours and posted it in parallel with this one:



No offense (I realize that you were learning systems and BB was buggy as hell) but the shit was hilarious.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I gave inXile an extra $1,000 when turn-based won the community poll (edit: for T:ToN), then basked in the resultant anguish of Biodrones and Obsidrones. Some of them were threatening to withdraw their pledges and/or complain to consumer rights advocacy groups... oh, it was glorious.

I wasn't $1000 happy about it, but I was glad they went with turn based. I don't think either of RT or TB is objectively better than the other, but I almost always prefer TB.

However, I do think that in some ways RTwP is less risky than TB if you aren't sure about how well the designers can implement combat. Bad TB is usually more tedious than bad RTwP (see Arcanum for the perfect test subject). It's not just about good combat vs. bad combat though. Even well designed encounters will have that moment where you've effectively won, but you still have to go through a bunch of cleanup rounds. Or well designed games will have areas that you're a bit overpowered for, but have to do anyway.

 

[Blaine]

Yes, you can definitely get risk free attacks. A single enemies don't have enough reaction fire to kill all your guys. Once their spent, you are free to attack.

I can get risk-free attacks in Pillars of Eternity and Baldur's Gate 2 as well. The definition of "risk-free" here is pretty amorphous.

Good thing that wasn't my argument then.

It's a realism-based argument, no matter how you've chosen to phrase it. We know that combat should be chaotic because observations of real-world combat prove that this is the case. Without that bias, for all we know, in a fantasy world combat should proceed in a cadenced and orderly fashion.

Having said that, I've personally found that even solidly TB combat can turn into a chaotic, unpredictable clusterfuck, in spite of a well-ordered system of turns.

Sure, which is why your post was so bizarre - simultaneous conflict resolution adds nothing...besides completely changing the mechanics of combat apparently. Glad that you agree.

I don't agree. Changing something isn't the same as adding to it. I can pick up six children's blocks sitting side-by-side and rearrange them into a tower, but there are still six of them. That's not a fantastic analogy, but it should get the point across.

Perhaps a better one: I can change the background image of my desktop. The new image looks completely different, but I didn't "add a picture to my desktop." I changed one picture for another. Although something was gained, something was also lost. Therefore the result isn't a net gain.

 

[tuluse]

I can get risk-free attacks in Pillars of Eternity and Baldur's Gate 2 as well. The definition of "risk-free" here is pretty amorphous.

Only through outranging your opponent. Otherwise they could always choose to attack whoever is attacking them. In sequential resolution it is possible to create situations where your opponent does not have that choice.

Out ranging is obviously a tactical consideration that can apply to any resolution system.

It's a realism-based argument, no matter how you've chosen to phrase it.

No, it really wasn't.

We know that combat should be chaotic because observations of real-world combat prove that this is the case.

I never said that, or even meant to imply such a thing.

Without that bias, for all we know, in a fantasy world combat should proceed in a cadenced and orderly fashion.

Maybe it should, I never claimed it *should* be one way or another.

My argument is that you can simulate battlefield chaos better in real time. This has nothing to do with real battlefields. Some people find more chaotic combat fun. Thus real time would be more fun to them.

 

[Blaine]

Otherwise they could always choose to attack whoever is attacking them. In sequential resolution it is possible to create situations where your opponent does not have that choice.

This is also possible in real-time systems, although it depends on the system. Let's say an ogre attacks slowly with a huge club. A fast-moving character may dart in, attack, and then move safely away in a fashion similar to sequential hit-and-run tactics.

In addition, mechanics such as reaction fire, attacks of opportunity, and similar on can simulate risk even during a character's own turn in which they nominally can do whatever they want.

Out ranging is obviously a tactical consideration that can apply to any resolution system.

As are risk-free-attacks of other sorts, although again, it depends on the system... but they are possible, and that's what matters here.

 

[Sensuki]

No offense (I realize that you were learning systems and BB was buggy as hell) but the shit was hilarious.

I thought it was funny too.

Also, "simultaneous unit action" isn't really necessary and doesn't add as much as some people seem to think it does.

Excuse me, but yes it does. There are quite a few examples but I'll just give a few.

In real-time games you don't have to control EVERY action of EVERY unit, basic attacks are automated at the very minimum (I don't like party AI, but I do like this bit), which allows you to focus on key actions only.

In real-time games you can interrupt current unit actions. For instance - enemy casting a spell and you interrupt it by attacking them. In turn-based that either wouldn't happen or would be handled very differently either by a spell taking multiple turns to cast (don't think I've ever seen it and certainly not with stuff that can stop it) or having some passive interrupt thing that makes enemies lose AP, which is not the same.

In real-time games you can dodge AoE spells by moving out of the way (or slow projectiles of any kind).

In real-time games you can dynamically alter enemy targeting through movement. Real-time and turn-based AI have vastly different needs and in real-time distance and line of sight are often big factors, which is rare in turn-based.

Real-time games allow you to cancel your actions to prevent mistakes. The only TB game I've seen kinda/sorta address this is Banner Saga with it's confirm system

Turn-based systems favor the side with the most units as they get more turns (more actions) and it allows the side with more units to block the side with less units in. In a real-time game if I have one unit and the other guy has 20, I can run around as much as I want and not get cornered in as long as I can find a path through his units. In turn-based you can usually very easily physically surround and block unit movement. The Banner Saga's alternate team turn system kinda/sorta makes this not as extreme, but it's still very easy to block/surround units.

Dealing with damage in real-time is completely different because there's always more damage being dealt simultaneously when you're trying to respond to it. In turn-based it's easy because you are controlling your unit on your turn, so if you're not killed before your turn, it's easy for you to react to it if you can.

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

You mean besides completely changing the way combat plays out?

"Playing out differently" is neither inherently inferior nor inherently superior in this case.

It doesn't have to be about being superior or inferior, it's just different. Some times I enjoy playing games with different mechanics. I greatly enjoy games with excellent turn based combat, like JA2. I also greatly enjoy games with excellent RTwP combat, like BG2. I don't enjoy them for the exact same reason because they play very differently and I like that. As much as I love RPGs with good TB combat, I think it would be awfully dreary if every RPG was made with TB combat, just because variety is nice.

 

[Blaine]

In turn-based that either wouldn't happen or would be handled very differently either by a spell taking multiple turns to cast (don't think I've ever seen it and certainly not with stuff that can stop it)

Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics, and others sprint to mind.

...or having some passive interrupt thing that makes enemies lose AP, which is not the same.

This is a value judgement.

In real-time games you can dodge AoE spells by moving out of the way (or slow projectiles of any kind).

Unless they're instant or near-instant, that is. Also see: Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics. Turn length and turn order are variable in those games.

Real-time games allow you to cancel your actions to prevent mistakes. The only TB game I've seen kinda/sorta address this is Banner Saga with it's confirm system

Surely you jest. I can think of numerous TB games that allow you to backtrack your movement and cancel your actions right up until you commit, after which, yes, you're committed. In many RT games, your little dude is halfway across the screen before you think better of whatever you were doing.

You have a lot of good points otherwise, but I question how important these differences actually are in terms of whether they're "better" or simply "different."

 

[tuluse]

Now to argue the opposite side.

In real-time games you don't have to control EVERY action of EVERY unit, basic attacks are automated at the very minimum (I don't like party AI, but I do like this bit), which allows you to focus on key actions only.

Blobbers have done this too, and strategy games like Civilization have found ways to automate some actions.

In real-time games you can interrupt current unit actions. For instance - enemy casting a spell and you interrupt it by attacking them. In turn-based that either wouldn't happen or would be handled very differently either by a spell taking multiple turns to cast (don't think I've ever seen it and certainly not with stuff that can stop it) or having some passive interrupt thing that makes enemies lose AP, which is not the same.

jRPGs have done this

 

[Sensuki]

This is a value judgement.

It's not the same, is all I said. AP loss is more like loss of 'attack speed'.

Unless they're instant or near-instant, that is. Also see: Tactics Ogre, Final Fantasy Tactics. Turn length and turn order are variable in those games.

Not many AoE spells are instant or near-instant and real-time games like DotA have abilities that allow you to move out of the way of stuff that is near-instant (Blink Dagger, Force Staff etc) which is awesome gameplay.

Surely you jest. I can think of numerous TB games that allow you to backtrack your movement and cancel your actions right up until you commit, after which, yes, you're committed. In many RT games, your little dude is halfway across the screen before you think better of whatever you were doing.

Real-time with pause and most of these games have a cancel/stop function. Casting an AoE and target moves out of AoE ? Press cancel and don't waste spell etc. In every TB game I've played once I've commited a move action, I can't cancel or stop it, it's committed. In RT you can press stop/cancel. It's theoretically possible to allow you to cancel committed actions in TB as long as the animation hasn't completed but I've never seen it.

 

[Sensuki]

You have a lot of good points otherwise, but I question how important these differences actually are in terms of whether they're "better" or simply "different."

Like anything, it depends on the implementation. The differences between TB and RT(wP) could either be strengths OR weaknesses.