Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsSAILERIUS'S PROFILE
Close
Something happened to me last night when I was driving home. I had a couple of miles to go. I looked up and saw a glowing orange object in the sky. It was moving irregularly. Suddenly, there was intense light all around. And when I came to, I was home.
What do you think happened to me?
What do you think happened to me?
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
J.E. Sawyer (designer: Fallout, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity) on Turn Based Combat
You should really try playing Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, or Puerto Rico. They're all classics with a lot of interesting ideas, and you can play most (all?) of them online. I was skeptical too until I was forced to play them in college, and I wound up being pretty amazed.
J.E. Sawyer (designer: Fallout, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity) on Turn Based Combat
author=InfectionFiles
As for boardgames, I don't see what we could learn from them that we haven't already learned from RPGs or turn based games.
Considering most boardgames require two or more players, that's what makes them fun. You'll either being implementing a multiplayer option or have AI which just isn't fun to play against.
What do you think we could learn from boardgames? Because I don't see how they translate to turn based games beyond what we already know and what's been done.
In most game design courses nowadays, you're required to take board game design classes before digital game design classes because board games are decades ahead of digital games in terms of mechanics. Because production values are much lower, board game designers have been able to iterate much faster.
There's a lot to learn from board games. It's interesting to play games like Carcassonne and Puerto Rico and realizing that they've had interesting ideas for systems ages and ages ago that video games still haven't caught onto. Largely, video games are still stuck on modeling all gameplay as adversarial (i.e., about defeating enemies) whereas there's a broad range of objectives in board games. Most board games, to some extent, require you to in some way collaborate with your enemies in order to advance both of your goals. They also often have rich resource economies, whereas in most digital games the economy boils down to kill enemy -> get money -> spend money on items -> use items to better kill enemies -> repeat.
What Videogames Are You Playing Right Now?
The Witness makes me feel stupider than that time I visited Italy when I couldn't understand Italian.
J.E. Sawyer (designer: Fallout, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity) on Turn Based Combat
author=SoozI personally prefer turn-based to action games... in theory, it's just that there hasn't been a fun turn-based game in years, whereas action games have been evolving a lot these past few years. I think the reason people overlook the value of turn-based games is because they're often so samey and get stuck on iterating on menial things like encounter rate rather than fundamental questions like, what is an encounter? Why are they necessary? What fundamental assumptions about the way they work, and their role in the game, are we not questioning?
Yeah, I'm speaking in really broad generalities for the sake of hypotheticals; I recognise that there will always be outliers on this stuff, because gam mak is an art and art has really fluid boundaries, but I don't feel like what I said is unuseful!author=Sailerius
tl;dr Not all real-time games are about fast action and reflexes, and it affords potential just as great as turn-based for analysis and tactics. Instead of continuing to talk about why it's brainless action, I think it would be more productive to just accept that they're both as effective for high-level thinking and evaluate what one can learn from the other.
I thought I made it clear that I didn't think of RT as "brainless action," just that it's not as suited for many slower and contemplative narratives. I'm not dissin' your fave gameplay style, dude, I just feel like TB has its own value that people overlook.
That's why I think, regardless of your genre of choice, it's important to play wildly different things to broaden your horizons. I started playing shooters, puzzlers, and stealth games because I found I was getting too into the headspace of JRPG conventions and I've learned a lot more from these games than I have from playing more RPGs. Like kentona said earlier, why hasn't there been a turn-based fighting game? Everyone I know who's big into fighting games insists that it's not about button mashing or reflexes, so why not remove that aspect altogether and get to the core of what they're about? Square-Enix reimagined Tomb Raider and Hitman as turn-based games and they're awesome.
Seriously, if you haven't played Lara Croft GO, give it a shot. It captures the essence of the Tomb Raider games in a turn-based format.
I think an awesome idea for an event would be to take a traditionally action-based genre and implementing it in a turn-based fashion without just giving it an RPG battle system.
J.E. Sawyer (designer: Fallout, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity) on Turn Based Combat
Hmm, you seem to be of the belief that all real-time gameplay has to be fast and reflex-based, which while that may be true in MOBAs and fighting games, I don't think it's necessarily true of the paradigm in general. On the contrary, I think that real-time gameplay inherently demands more thinking and situational analysis than turn-based.
Before I go into why, I'm going to explain why I prefer the terms continuous gameplay vs discrete gameplay instead of real-time and turn-based. The real distinction to me between the two is that in discrete gameplay, your actions are atomic and broad; you choose to cast Fire on Bandit and it hits or misses and deals a discrete amount of damage. In continuous gameplay, the play-experience is a stream of interactions. Rather than "attack," you are "attacking." Rather than "move to space XY," you are "moving to XY." At a given moment, in a continuous game, you are doing multiple things at once and are in the process of doing more things, but there's not really a binary success/failure measure for actions because the possibility space of what you can do is uncountable. For instance, your fireball could "miss" but by missing it could still do splash damage, or light the grass on fire, etc. So what continuous gameplay is about is a continuum between different outcomes versus success/failure.
The game with the deepest gameplay that I've played in a very long time is Metal Gear Solid V, which requires a hundred times more tactical, analytical thinking than any RPG I've ever played and it's also a fairly slow-paced game. It exemplifies the tactical possibilities of continuous gameplay: every inch of ground has an infinitum of tactical meaning behind it, and enemy bases often have dozens of different enemies all carrying out different behaviors constantly. This requires you to survey the base from afar before you try to infiltrate it, studying the guard positions, behaviors, etc as well as where fortifications are positioned, where weapons are, where are good entrance/escape points, where could you make a diversion, etc. And the thing is that there's no in-game concept of "fortification;" anything in the game world can completely change the situation. If someone drives a supply truck into a base, that's now a moving form of cover you could hide behind. Or something you could use as a distraction by blowing up.
Continuous gameplay is much better at modeling complex situations; when you're talking about encounters with dozens of agents all acting at the same time, turn-based gameplay necessarily becomes far too slow and boring to sit through. I don't want to each every single of those guards take their turns. Another consideration is that their actions are also a stream of behaviors rather than discrete commands, so you can interrupt them at any point in that stream and the exact moment in their stream of action that you interact will provide a meaningfully different result than any other moment.
tl;dr Not all real-time games are about fast action and reflexes, and it affords potential just as great as turn-based for analysis and tactics. Instead of continuing to talk about why it's brainless action, I think it would be more productive to just accept that they're both as effective for high-level thinking and evaluate what one can learn from the other.
Before I go into why, I'm going to explain why I prefer the terms continuous gameplay vs discrete gameplay instead of real-time and turn-based. The real distinction to me between the two is that in discrete gameplay, your actions are atomic and broad; you choose to cast Fire on Bandit and it hits or misses and deals a discrete amount of damage. In continuous gameplay, the play-experience is a stream of interactions. Rather than "attack," you are "attacking." Rather than "move to space XY," you are "moving to XY." At a given moment, in a continuous game, you are doing multiple things at once and are in the process of doing more things, but there's not really a binary success/failure measure for actions because the possibility space of what you can do is uncountable. For instance, your fireball could "miss" but by missing it could still do splash damage, or light the grass on fire, etc. So what continuous gameplay is about is a continuum between different outcomes versus success/failure.
The game with the deepest gameplay that I've played in a very long time is Metal Gear Solid V, which requires a hundred times more tactical, analytical thinking than any RPG I've ever played and it's also a fairly slow-paced game. It exemplifies the tactical possibilities of continuous gameplay: every inch of ground has an infinitum of tactical meaning behind it, and enemy bases often have dozens of different enemies all carrying out different behaviors constantly. This requires you to survey the base from afar before you try to infiltrate it, studying the guard positions, behaviors, etc as well as where fortifications are positioned, where weapons are, where are good entrance/escape points, where could you make a diversion, etc. And the thing is that there's no in-game concept of "fortification;" anything in the game world can completely change the situation. If someone drives a supply truck into a base, that's now a moving form of cover you could hide behind. Or something you could use as a distraction by blowing up.
Continuous gameplay is much better at modeling complex situations; when you're talking about encounters with dozens of agents all acting at the same time, turn-based gameplay necessarily becomes far too slow and boring to sit through. I don't want to each every single of those guards take their turns. Another consideration is that their actions are also a stream of behaviors rather than discrete commands, so you can interrupt them at any point in that stream and the exact moment in their stream of action that you interact will provide a meaningfully different result than any other moment.
tl;dr Not all real-time games are about fast action and reflexes, and it affords potential just as great as turn-based for analysis and tactics. Instead of continuing to talk about why it's brainless action, I think it would be more productive to just accept that they're both as effective for high-level thinking and evaluate what one can learn from the other.
What Videogames Are You Playing Right Now?
I picked up Final Fantasy X-2 HD last night since I only ever played a few minutes of it back when it first came out and I really need some gameplay inspiration. I had tried Trails in the Sky having heard everyone raving about it but it was a snoozefest and I couldn't force myself to play any more of it.
X-2 has some really cool ideas for the class system, but it's a shame that I'm two hours into the game and have won every single battle (including two bosses) by just mashing X on the Attack button. I have never used a single spell, ability, or item in battle yet. And this is a shame because the concept of the skill progression system is interesting but I don't feel incentivized to use any of the abilities I've been learning.
It also suffers from the same problem that almost every ATB game has: even when I set it to Wait mode, enemies continue taking turns while I deliberate on the main menu, which is the one menu here I spend most of my time, so I feel like I'm given no breathing room to strategize, which makes me even more inclined to just mash Attack.
I can definitely see how the gameplay was a prototype for FFXIII's, and you can easily see how they iterated on the idea and finally made it work by removing the random encounters and adding heal between encounters, such that battles are allowed to be challenging enough to encourage (and actually require) thinking.
X-2 has some really cool ideas for the class system, but it's a shame that I'm two hours into the game and have won every single battle (including two bosses) by just mashing X on the Attack button. I have never used a single spell, ability, or item in battle yet. And this is a shame because the concept of the skill progression system is interesting but I don't feel incentivized to use any of the abilities I've been learning.
It also suffers from the same problem that almost every ATB game has: even when I set it to Wait mode, enemies continue taking turns while I deliberate on the main menu, which is the one menu here I spend most of my time, so I feel like I'm given no breathing room to strategize, which makes me even more inclined to just mash Attack.
I can definitely see how the gameplay was a prototype for FFXIII's, and you can easily see how they iterated on the idea and finally made it work by removing the random encounters and adding heal between encounters, such that battles are allowed to be challenging enough to encourage (and actually require) thinking.
Any Xbox one users on here?
author=lonestarluigiauthor=SaileriusI'll be sure to be on the look out for that. And D4 also looks pretty good,I'm starting to slowly get into adventure games, don't have a kinect though. Are the kinects worth it? I heard they work for some games and make the system faster like getting to a game or stuff like that.author=lonestarluigiOh, you're going to love MGSV then. If and when you pick up Type-0 HD, try to find a Day One Edition so you can get the FFXV demo, which is also a lot of fun. As for smaller games, Ori and the Blind Forest is great and D4 is a clever and funny adventure game (which is even better if you have a Kinect).author=SaileriusNot really picky about any games, just looking for a solid fun game. I'v heard about Type-0 and it looks really good, and phantom pain looks amazing, I'm a huge MGS fan. I'v been mainly trying to get the most out of the 4 I already own as of now before I buy a new game.
I have one but I don't have Xbox Live. What kind of game are you looking for? If an RPG, Type-0 HD is fantastic. If you're not picky about genre, Phantom Pain is one of the best games I've played in years.
Your mileage may vary with the Kinect. I personally find it really useful as I use my Xbox One as my media center, so it's nice being able to use voice control to change music/videos/etc while I'm eating. It's not especially useful for just games though. D4 is an interesting counter-example because a lot of the fun of the game is the audacity of the things it makes you do with the Kinect (such as, in one case, suddenly prompting you to scream obscenities at it).
Any Xbox one users on here?
author=lonestarluigiauthor=SaileriusNot really picky about any games, just looking for a solid fun game. I'v heard about Type-0 and it looks really good, and phantom pain looks amazing, I'm a huge MGS fan. I'v been mainly trying to get the most out of the 4 I already own as of now before I buy a new game.
I have one but I don't have Xbox Live. What kind of game are you looking for? If an RPG, Type-0 HD is fantastic. If you're not picky about genre, Phantom Pain is one of the best games I've played in years.
Oh, you're going to love MGSV then. If and when you pick up Type-0 HD, try to find a Day One Edition so you can get the FFXV demo, which is also a lot of fun. As for smaller games, Ori and the Blind Forest is great and D4 is a clever and funny adventure game (which is even better if you have a Kinect).
Any Xbox one users on here?
I have one but I don't have Xbox Live. What kind of game are you looking for? If an RPG, Type-0 HD is fantastic. If you're not picky about genre, Phantom Pain is one of the best games I've played in years.
J.E. Sawyer (designer: Fallout, Icewind Dale, Pillars of Eternity) on Turn Based Combat
author=Ratty524
While part of me thinks a lot of the "X is outdated!" comes from kids who aren't used to anything other than fast-paced junk, another part I think is worth considering is that fast-paced action games are easier to market. You can have all the ads showing explosions and guns and the player gliding through giant robots and all that visual junkfood a lot of people seem to eat up nowadays and it'll describe the game perfectly. With turn-based systems, especially in the retro FF style, they tend to look a bit static when shown to anyone who isn't actually playing the game.
While I think that certainly makes it easier to market games with continuous gameplay, I think it's a bit reductionist to say that people prefer it nowadays only because they haven't been exposed to enough turn-based games. The primary advantage from a design standpoint that continuous gameplay holds over turn-based is the seamless harmonization of various kinds of gameplay into a unified experience. In most turn-based games, you enter a separate screen with often different graphics, controls, and UI when you go into battle, and the in-battle mechanics and modes of interaction are completely different from the out-of-battle mechanics (this isn't strictly true; lots of roguelikes have a fully turn-based world).
There's a certain beauty to a game that doesn't have distinct "phases" of gameplay, and this is the mechanical aesthetic that games have been trending toward for many years. I was reading some behind the scenes on some of the older FFs (most recently, FFX) and found it interesting to read about what they originally envisioned for the game. FFX was originally intended to have on-map encounters and a seamless transition in and out of battle, but because of hardware limitations they ended up having to scrap it. FFXII plays much closer to the original vision of FFX, but even it still has different battle versus nonbattle modes (your in-battle skills are almost never used out of battle). FFXV is an attempt to finally achieve what they've been trying to do for decades in minimizing the divide between "in battle" and "out of battle," with Noctis's abilities being useful both for combat and map exploration.
I think this ideal of games as presented by a single phase-interface is what the new generation is accustomed to. If you think about it, the whole concept of randomly walking around and suddenly being ripped away to a completely different screen for a completely different kind of gameplay is actually pretty strange, but we as RPG enthusiasts are used to it and accept it as convention. I don't think there's anything wrong with it so much as it not being in sync with the mechanical aesthetic that most games people play nowadays are embracing.
I think it would be interesting to see a turn-based imagining of that aesthetic. I guess it would be something like an open world SRPG where interacting with NPCs was treated the same way as fighting enemies.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
