Turn-based | Forums

[kaisha_ku]

The trailer looks beautiful. I'm a huge fan of the MM series and have played every itteration since the first one.

I am frustrated by the trend to turn RPGs into FPS with swords/magic. The people who play video games are not only young enthusiasts, but also a generation of 30 - 40 year olds who have grown up with games. We are losing our twitch reflexes, or perhaps never had them in the first place. We have to answer the phone, or turn off the oven, or put the kids to bed so it is hard for us to play a game that dosen't easily allow us to turn around and interact with our families. It might be too late for this game, but I ask that turn-based combat be seriously considered in future MM titles.

[Piln_]

I think a lot of this talk of DM being an "FPS" game is a little OTT... yes, it's a first-person action game, but I'm not expecting something with the pace of Unreal. To me, the pace of full-on combat looks slow enough to allow tactical depth, and the pace of other styles of play is slower and more considered (assassin play is clearly going to be something like that of Thief, and if that's too quick and reflex-based for you then I really don't know what to say). Mages will presumably have a range of options at their disposal.

I think to call this twitch-gaming is overstating the case massively. Quake III is twitch gaming. Remember the Arkane guys have been around at least as long as us and their most well-known major influence is Ultima Underwolrd. Hardly the Hexen of its day. The devs are showing their appreciation of the design principles Looking Glass pioneered pretty openly, and I think it's safe to expect a game something like those LG used to make. If you want to slow the pace, pick a stealthy character, and keep your finger near the escape key

You're right, we won't see turn-based in this game (couldn't see it working at all, even as a mod). Hate to make definitive statements about games in development, but I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong about this. One interesting take on turn-based combat was in UFO:Aftermath, an unofficial trubute to the excellent old XCOM games. Do you know it? Tricky to explain... it's kind of like turn-based without turns. You give your team orders, then they'll play out in realtime until something happens (like: they spot an enemy, or kill one they're already shooting at, or their ammo runs out, etc) - then the action freezes and you get to revise orders (of course, you can freeze manually and give new orders whenever you like). There is no requirement for player reflexes, and you sacrifice none of the detailed control you get in traditional turn-based systems, even though you observe the action in realtime - and it removes that age-old turn-based conundrum of how to realistically depict the passage of time and characters acting simultaneously (nigh impossible to do in an alternating-turn system). I played the demo and thoroughly enjoyed it, and was very impressed with the turn-based system, and I've since bought the full game (it's cheap) - but I've heard it gets a bit dull in the long term, so don't rush out and buy it then blame me if you don't like it

[xi101xi]

Obviously, this is not the game for you. Making a design change like what you have proposed would alter this games playable mechanics to the point that it would hurt the entire project. It would add too much to each developers plate. They would have to develop every gameplay/Story element around turnbased as well as Action. Being complete Polar opposites of each other should make it very clear that these two elements do not like each other. You develop one or the other, but not both.

There are literally millions of Turn-Based RPGs. Too many to count. I am sick to death of them. Give me something exciting, something that forces me to be a part of the world im playing in. Place me directly into the action with full control of my players skills.

Now, for future titles I don't see a problem. This is only one game. It has certain design goals which obviously do not meet your criteria so let another M&M game appease your Turn-Based Appetite.

Btw, using age and family as an excuse for lack of motor skills is pretty pathetic. You are only limited by your desires to do so. If you are only willing to learn how to utilize the gaming systems of an Action Game you would also fall in love with its heart pumping dynamically drivin action element. Something you cannot find anywhere else. You just hate the suspense dont you!

[ThiefOfTime]

well, i think its technically very hard to make a turn based system built around an fps combat system...

i prefer it in the current taste, but... there is a challange here, coding in a system to desiper automatic "time freese" points, cuclulation the extent of the natural movement as if it was "movements per turn" and transilating the first to a numerical value...

i would feel sorry for the coders responsible of implementing it, but as a design, it could be really interesting challange even just for the fun of theory.

[kaisha_ku]

There are literally millions of Turn-Based RPGs.

Perhaps from a few years ago, but I can't think of a turn based RPG that has come out recently. I'd love to hear the name of a good turn-based RPG that's come out in 2005.

With the popularity of Civ 4, its clear there is a market for turn-based games. I certainly don't begrudge them for trying something new with DM. As a dedicated consumer of the Might and Magic series, I was hoping to remind someone, somewhere in the gaming world that turn based games still have fans.

Piln_ I liked the Xcom series but i don't think I've played that game. I'll look for it. And for the record, I really -do- suck that badly at real time action =P

[HexHammer]

No way DM should be TBS, that would ruin the whole action phased gameplay, it would be like asking having CounterStrike being turn based. We love such FPS 'cuz of the intence feeling of action surrounding us, TBS somewhat makes things less dramatic, you have time to think things over and keep u'r cool, not in FPS baby!

[xi101xi]

Theres tons on the consoles. More then you're thinking. I admit that the computer has few, but it has fewer First-Person Action/RPG's.

Anyway, the sales of the last few M&M games have been low. This is one reason for the style change, also because this style hasn't really been widely used in RPGs. It has lots of room to grow.

So please stop trying to mix up game elements. That generally never works out right. Better to be extreme when it comes to Real-Time or Turn-Based. One or the other, but not both.

You will most likely be able to pause anyway. So if things get too hot, pause and think about what your about to do for a moment.

The Final Fantasy clones are slowly starting to dwindle because a lot of gamers are getting sick of them. Even Final Fantasy is not what it once was any more. So, leave the Turn-Based up to them. Square-Enix handles that style well. Maybe you should be frequenting there Forum instead?

Bah, don't take offense or anything, to each there own. I'm personally sick to death of the random TB games out there. Too many to count rarely a gem to be found.

[Piln_]

Originally posted by kaisha_ku:
Piln_ I liked the Xcom series but i don't think I've played that game. I'll look for it. And for the record, I really -do- suck that badly at real time action =P

Well, I'm not so bad with realtime action, but realtime strategy is something I just can't do. So I'm glad the XCOM games were turn-based, otherwise I probably wouldn't have been able to play them! But over the years I've become annoyed at just how long it can take to get things done in certain turn-based games. For example, I played the demo of a WW2 turn-based tactical game "Silent Storm" and while I can't really fault the game at all - in fact it had many excellent touches (particularly aiming/sniping), and is well-liked by turn-based strategy & RPG fans - it took me several hours just to complete a single demo level, and I just don't have that kind of time on to spare.

That's one of the reasons why the UFO:Aftermath system appealed to me so much. You get all the precision and time-to-think of a turn-based game, but the realtime execution and lack of actual "turns" (ie, everybody acts at once) makes things much more speedy and efficient. Not to mention more realistic. Another thing I liked about it, when I played the demo, was the last level was so hard it almost made me give up, until I started thinking tactically and positioning my soldiers with different lines-of-sight to protect themsleves and sucker the aliens... it was almost like playing Full Spectrum Warrior or something like that. And the new plan worked like a charm, so I really respected the game for rewarding tactical play.

Anyway, hope you enjoy the game if decide to try it. Sorry for hijacking the thread with all this UFO talk, folks. I have a question for the M&M fans: how many of you played the combat in realtime? I played only one game (6 or 7, I forget which) and found the realtime mode was great for exploring etc. but useless in combat - before long, the enemy numbers were so overwhelming I just couldn't do anything without switching to turn-based. In fact that's what turned me off the game eventually - too many fights against too many enemies, that lasted too long. I liked the rest of the game, but the combat seemed intrusive and bored me senseless.

Anyway... did you M&M veterans use realtime or turn-based mode for combat?

[Dergos]

i played mm6-9 real time exploring else it would be undoable but combat was so cool in turn-based but i didn't use it always like when you where flying and you had the spell armegedon you just used that when flying