Did real time with pause die because RTS declined? Or is it just.. bad.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Did real time with pause die because RTS declined? Or is it just.. bad.
Did real time with pause die because RTS declined? Or is it just.. bad.
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
casuals run the video game industry now
I wouldn't even say it's casuals. The industry is run by the kinds of people who hated videogames when they were in school and looked down on anyone playing them.
Then the videogame industry started making big bucks and suddenly all these people shoved their way in. None of them play videogames, they despise videogames and they despise people who play videogames, but they're greedy narcissists and they smell greenbacks so here they are, ruining everything they touch.
RTWP combat was invented for the casual players at the time and that is something you fans have conveniently forgotten. Turn based was seen as too boring and old faso for the kids
It was fricking bad. Why can't morons admit it? Either do turn based or do real time. RTWP is both smashed together because the dev is scared to commit
RTWP is braindead casual shit
It's bad. As far as CRPGs go, playing BG1 is such a fricking slog. Either go full realtime and build the game around that or go turnbased. But for RTS, always real time. REAL. TIME. STRATEGY.
Total War says hi.
asiaticclickers no need to apply.
It doesn't work with competitive pvp
it's bad
RTwP is okay but it can make boss fights feel lame, there isn't really tactics other than prebuff and let the characters go ham. Also skills feel less impactful. It also leads games to making encounter design trash pack spam. Turn based has its own problems though so I don't really prefer one over the other.
I played a Cipher in Pillars of Eternity and it felt far more positional and active than the old 3.5e based RTWP games which is what just about everyone is thinking of. I don't love everything about PoE's mechanics, but I had a better time with it than Baldur's Gate or others of the era.
>tfw my most enjoyable RTwP game was a fricking Cyanide game meaning it was short, ended abruptly and everything else about it was cheap as shit
The battle between RTwP and TB ended with a resounding defeat for RTwP at the hands of BG3.
This debate really started with the PoE1's kickstater back when it was called Project Eternity. Josh Sawyer of Obsidian was still bitter he never got to make Baldur's Gate 3 in 2003, his BG3 getting canceled before release he judged there was enough nostalgia for Baldur's Gate out there to make another game so he started a kickstarter to make a Baldur's Gate-like game Project Eternity. Early on in the kickstarter a few backers and some of the staff argued that promise of RTwP never panned out and was the core reason this genre declined in popularity, they argued Project Entenity should be turn based. They were so persuasive it was put to a vote if the game should be turn based or Real Time with Pause. RTwP narrowly won, mostly because this was a nostalgia grab for Baldur's Gate and BG1/2 were both RTwP. So they designed a RTwP game and for PoE2 they threw in a hastily slapped together TB mode to appease those who wanted turn based. Turn based fans considered it shit and PoE2 flopped. Meanwhile Larian made Divinity: Original Sin and it was entirely built from the ground up as a turn based game and was wildly popular and it always served a counter example to PoE's RTwP. Divinity: Original Sin 2 was also built from the ground up as a Turn Based game and like it predecessor was wildly popular, so popular in fact Wizards of the Coast approached them, (and decidedly not Obsidian) to take up the Dungeons and Dragon's mantle and bring back Baldur's Gate something that gave Sawyer a mild existential crisis. Larian's BG3 like their previous 2 titles was built from the ground up as turn based and it won award after award and became one of the highest rated game in the genre surpassing the original BG1/2, absolutely crushed any other CRPG in sales and even had Sawyer admit that RTwP was a mistake.
I guess as a footnote you can also include Pathfinder, they had a kickstarter after PoE's was successful their first game was built from the ground up as a RTwP game. One fan made a mod to transform it into a turn based game following pathfinder tabletop rules, this mod was so popular the developer integrated it into the game in a later patch, they also used this mod as a basis for their second game's turn based mode which it launched with. So a RTwP game because a mixed RTwP and turn based one. The games still suffered from that RTwPitis though since they were built first and foremost as a RTwP games. Their next game unsurprisingly would then be entirely turn based ditching RTwP all together. Another defeat for RTwP.
TTRPGs (and with it cRPGs) just evolved into a direction that makes Real Time with Pause unplayable. It used to be that physical classes overall lacked in special attacks and it was just "normal attacks galore". No micromanagement required.
That way you just needed to manage your fighter's HP pool and pick the correct target and could mostly ignore them while focusing on micromanaging your casters.
Nowadays however even martial classes have a pool of special attacks that can be equal to any caster's, meaning that now EVERYONE requires a lot of micromanagement.
And not just with your party members, but enemies as well now sport many more different type of attacks, making correct positioning just SO much more important.
All that requires a degree of micromanagement that makes any form of real time combat impossible. You'd have to pause literally every second to readjust by which point you may as well go fully turn based.
Basically: imagine trying to play an MMO but you play 4 characters at the same time. 3 hotbars worth of skills each.
So more micromanagement bad, more macromanagement good?
the way fighters worked in old RTWP games was a complete bastardization of TTRPG's
guess what? shoving people into pits has been something fighters were supposed to be able to do since the very beginning
BG3 is made by someone who actually loved TTRPG's and it shows
Shoving someone is over 9000 harder than striking them with the sword.
RTWP died when zoomers became the primary consumer of games, ironically
some gays joke about how only zoomers can't stand turn based games, but those homosexuals don't know the sheer number of relaxing games that came out in the early days
lmao, no
if you try and pull half the bullshit you can do in BG3 to cheese the game your DM would fiat your ass into a pit after you tried to throw a homie instead of fighting him
if you play with a DM who'd veto pushing someone off the edge of a cliff or punish you for it, I'm sorry to say but your DM is arse
the entire point of having a DM is that the rules don't have to be absolute, even in AD&D times you were supposed to do a bunch of things that went outside of what the rules said you could do, there's no explicit rules for bypassing a pit trap, but that never stopped anyone from dismantling half a dungeon just to build a makeshift bridge over one
you might as well homebrew if you're not going to play by the rules
the rules are what make it fun and engaging otherwise the DM can pull whatever out of their ass to frick you
Rule 0 anon, always existed, core part of the game
also plenty of editions had rules for this kinda thing, 2e had wrestling, 3e bullrush etc
characters also always had stats you could base an attempt off of, so that shoving a wizard into a closet was much easier than shoving a dragon inthere
What exactly do you think fighter players did in older DnD editions? Did you think we just had our characters walk up to the enemy and swing our sword like a bot? The entire reason to play a martial has always been to fight tactically. Shoving enemies off of cliffs is the most basic shit imaginable and you do tons of that stuff. You'd bullrush into a group of weak enemies and cleave them, you'd trip an enemy then AoO them when they stand up, you'd disarm enemies from a distance by shooting their hands with your bow. The whole point of playing Fighter in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder was to go crazy with feats and make a character who could do fun shit like that, because otherwise you're basically just an npc and a Cleric with Divine Power active could do better in melee combat than you could. Nobody fricking played their Fighters as attack bots on TTRPGs, that would be so fricking mind-numbing.
>B-b-but muh OP tactics
Martials were never OP no matter what tactics you used on the enemy, even if you had +40 on all bullrush attempts and a BaB of 20 you'd still be outperformed by a mid-level Wizard or, god help you if one of these was in your party, any Druid.
It's fricking obvious that none of you played any of the earlier editions if you think bullrushing enemies off of cliffs is OP when a wizard can end a fight with one spell lmao.
still fricking hate how asinine Paizo was about maneuvers in 1e, wasn't near as hard to use them in 3.x
and course even before that in AD&D times you weren't expected to just be an auto-attack bot even if the rules were much lighter on what you could do
There's a nice homerule book I found called Elephant in the Room that fixes Pathfinder's fricking awful rules for that stuff. It reduces feat tax by fusing all those sorts of feats into two different sets of maneuvers, so all the strength stuff (Improved Bull Rush, Improved Drag, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder) is fused into Powerful Maneuvers and all the dex ones (Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Feint, Improved Reposition, Improved Steal) are Deft Maneuvers. Later feats that require those early feats stay the same but the basic "no AoO/+2 CMD" are rolled into the maneuver packages. You don't have to be level 10 just to trip someone anymore lmao.
But yeah, nobody plays Fighter as an auto-attack bot and nobody ever did. The closest thing to that in any edition was maybe the 1E cavalier, and even then it was less auto-attacking and more you can stop attacking.
was more talking about the CMB/CMD system in pathfinder being way overtuned in favor of enemies
bullrush in 3.5 was just an opposed strength check, with you getting +6 bonus on account of charging and improved bullrush, so as long as the enemy was weaker or smaller it was pretty easy to pull it off
pathfinder however made CMB scale with STR and BaB while CMD scaled with STR, DEX and BaB meaning you'd easily get out-scaled
Yeah but 3.5 had size bonuses for size category and number of legs meaning some enemies were functionally immune to bullrush just because they were large quadrupeds.
In Pathfinder with the right feats and buffs it's not that bad.
pathfinder has the exact same size bonuses and 4 leg bonuses
the major change is that improvement feats don't give as much a bonus as they did in 3.5 and that you're scaling STR against STR+DEX
Nope.
https://www.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Bull%20Rush&Category=Combat%20Maneuvers
There's no +4 for every size category larger than medium and no +4 for having 4 legs, all there is is a simple "you can't bullrush something two sizes larger than you".
In 3.5 you essentially can't bullrush anything even one size larger than you unless you're super heavily specced into it feat wise.
enemies in PF get bonuses to CMD for every size category though and bonuses get fairly crazy later on to the point after lv 10 or so trying to do combat maneuvers is a shitshow due to the double-scaling
nah, you're just a secondary fan who doesn't actually want to play tabletop, otherwise you would want BG3 to be you only controlling your character, with zero control over your party, and an AI system that is actively seeking to challenge you instead of waiting for you to stack fire barrels
if you go around every combat your DM designs and say "I kick him into a pit, my fighter is great at this kind of improvised combat" don't be surprised when your DM starts giving you every encounter on an open field or enemies that can ignore physical damage
why is the only option in your mind "I never do this" or "I always do this"
why is the option "I do this right now because it's a good moment for it" not available?
Also if I'm such a secondary who never played tabletop and are unique in my desire to push people off of edges, then why, if I may ask you so, was in 3.5 the dungeoncrasher fighter so gosh darn popular?
>why do people metagame instead of roleplay
>because their GM doesn't go out of their way to punish your homosexualry when you try to create OP characters looking to cheese encounters
it's shrimple
Anon, if you think pushing someone standing next to a cliff off of it is metagaming then quite frankly, you're making me suspect you're the one who's never played a single ttrpg in their lives
I can tell you having been both on the player and DM side, that if there's a big ol' chasm in a dungeon, I'm expecting someone to drop into it at some point, possibly one of the PC's if they're careless
Shoving is fake and gay.
thank you for confirming you're a secondary, zoomie
>when you overdose on Ganker contrarianism and try to claim that AKSHULLY tabletop is a more restrictive medium than a videogame, and desperately samegay on top of that
That's some serious brainrot.
That analysis is spot on.
Balance and abilities matter when choosing type of the combat.
I dunno, I prefer turn based but I don't see how this is a modern problem, poe was fine and worked pretty much exactly as you described. Post eder up, make sure he doesn't run out of stamina and then focus primarily on my wizards.
How do we feel about turn based with timers?
It is just a copout for designers who don't want players to play it safe and use turtling tactics but don't know how to or don't want to make enemies actually tough. .
There are good implementations of the concept, as long as you design it from the ground up for that purpose. The Bioware type is inherently bad.
FF VII R is the best version of RTwP tbh
Rebirth will be even better
Came here to say this.
Final Fantasy shows rtwp is still very much alive, just not in a form old crpg fans want to recognize.
RTwP is fine. Sometimes you can't do anything but a normal attack, it's just like how in JRPGs you can go auto or play out skills. The issue isn't reaction speed, it's animations playing out and reselecting things you already did. Yes, I think "filler" battles are necessary. No, I do not think they're unnecessary and there should be more focused placed on "battle designs". If I wanted to play such hardcore games, I would play an SRPG where it's literally a puzzle or something like Souls where every battle is run or designed in such a way to be punishing. RTwP is fine for a more casual game since there are elements that need to exist just like in tabletop roleplay. The difference is the GM can pass turns and make everything happen quicker than a computer because the computer has to ask for your input as well as play fair.
>real time with pause combat
that's literally FF7 remake
It's bad but turn-based isn't much better. Party members in RPGs is an outdated concept that should die so the genre can evolve
RTwP did not kill PoE2. The shit story with shit characters piloting a shit boat with shit boat mechanics did that. Gay fish too.
RTwP vs turn based is the ultimate brainrot zoomer debate because no one is honest enough to acknowledge how fricking lame it is to make trash take 10 IRL minutes when a RTwP party could clear them in one. Kingmaker/Wrath is currently the best compromise on the market specifically because they leverage the benefits of both and the downside of neither.
>RTwP vs turn based is the ultimate brainrot zoomer debate because no one is honest enough to acknowledge how fricking lame it is to make trash take 10 IRL minutes when a RTwP party could clear them in one. Kingmaker/Wrath is currently the best compromise on the market specifically because they leverage the benefits of both and the downside of neither.
A game designed for turn-based combat shouldn't have as many encounters as a RTwP game. The Pathfinder solution doesn't work because playing with turn-based combat only makes each game take like 600 hours
No matter how well designed you make an RPG, unless it's fully on-rails, there will be encounters that your party can and will slap their dicks all over and forcing these encounters to be long, drawn-out affairs is tiresome nonsense.
>You're not going to convince anyone that Pathfinder was secretly better than BG3 and everyone is wrong
This is completely and unironically true though and I like BG3. Everyone isn't wrong, they just got wowed by hype and marketing blitz, when the Pathfinder games had neither. This is like saying that Avatar is better than Fellowship of the Ring because it sold more seats.
>This is completely and unironically true though
Its not, BG3 won because of the merits of its gameplay. Pathfinder lost because of its inferior gameplay.
>RTwP did not kill PoE2.
It did, there are numerous other factors blamed but PoE2 lost to Divinity: Original Sin 2 primarily because players preferred playing D:OS2. The gay bear didn't kill BG3 so why do you think the gay fish killed PoE2?
Could just level scale every encounter to the party level. If you hit this encounter at level 3 its 3 kobolds and a bugbear, at level 5 its 3 bugbears and a troll, at level 10 its 3 trolls and a cyclopes.
Forced scaling means the player no longer feels any sense of progression, and only really works if the fights are just against a sea of HP sponges rather than against enemies placed with forethought in terrain designed to make an interesting encounter.
Wrong. If you swap in more powerful enemy types (rather than just scaling up the existing enemies) the player never feels this way. This feeling of no progression comes from games like oblivion which will stall have you fighting the same things but now they're higher level with bigger numbers but visually look the same.
Here you progressed from fighting kobolds and bugbears to trolls and cyclopes, you feel stronger because the enemies you're fighting look and are bigger and stronger, thus a sense of progression. Remember this isn't a game filled with trash encounters to pad out the game every fight is important and such needs to be tailored to the party's level.
>This feeling of no progression comes from games like oblivion which will stall have you fighting the same things but now they're higher level with bigger numbers but visually look the same.
oblivion changes enemy spawns completely as you gain levels
not even going to read the rest of your post as you're not even informed enough on your own arguments
Pathfinder lets you swap between turn-based and RTwP anytime you want which is how you should be playing it, using both depending on the situation, not one or the other for your entire campaign. You enable turn-based when you need to be strategic and every action counts swapping to RTwP once the battle is mostly decided and you're just mopping the last remaining stragglers.
Or you just don't fill your game with trash encounters and design each one to be interesting ala BG3. Owlcat lost. Obsidian lost. Larian won. This is reality and you have to accept it. You're not going to convince anyone that Pathfinder was secretly better than BG3 and everyone is wrong.
>acknowledge how fricking lame it is to make trash take 10 IRL minutes
But that's a problem with the trash mobs, not the combat. The two Pathfinder games and Pillars 1 were massive slogs due to endless trash mobs, Pillars 2 at least had the right idea of cutting down the trash and making enemies a bit stronger in exchange.
poe2 is genuinely a great game, better than 1, the narrative is weak but who cares? The gameplay is fun
It sucks how their strengths are inversely proportional. I love the tone and the companions of 1, while I hate the tone and companions of 2. Meanwhile 1's gameplay is "ok" while 2 may be the best CRPG combat I can think of. Not to mention multiclassing was pure sex, shit like Cipher/Rogue and Fighter/Paladin was hilarious. Unbroken Shieldbearer was on so many defenses and so many emergency heals that he could just take a break during a boss fight and not worry.
I think deadfire failed because most poe fans are sad fricks who are into the game merely for the "serious" setting, I honestly think it's garbage, poe1's plot is fricking trash,nothing about it is interesting, only the gameplay makes it worth playing and makes me positively rate the game as a whole
I'd say that's me too. PoE 2 put me to sleep with it's "colourful" setting and "wacky" characters.
I love this moronic cringe shit writing, especially Xoti
>no one is honest enough to acknowledge how fricking lame it is to make trash take 10 IRL minutes when a RTwP party could clear them in one
When the game is properly designed around turn-based then there'll be no "trash" encounters.
>Kingmaker/Wrath is currently the best compromise
Kingmaker/Wrath is a game clearly designed around rtwp (50 "trash" packs per tiny 500m^2 maps), tacked on turn-based mode doesn't magically erase that fact.
What are some turn-based games designed around no trash encounters?
This isn't a trick or a gotcha, I just don't know a lot about cRPGs
DOS 1 and 2, BG3, underrail, solasta (more of a dungeon crawler than a full-fledged crpg).
There are also wasteland 2&3 and age of decadence, but the former have random encounters so they don't quite qualify, and the latter's combat is so shit it might as well be one giant trash encounter.
I don't understand what people dislike about AoD's combat, could you elaborate on that?
My experience was
>as a fighting class, you can flatten enemies pretty easily
>as a talky class you just avoid combat at all costs
>as a loremaster you cheat with ancient tech
What's there to like? There's no depth to neither character building nor gameplay, every encounter, no matter your weapon of choice, boils down to "where do I stand so I'm not surrounded by 8 enemies".
Turn based is garbage.
aww the zoomie needs his nap time
It's more difficult to program. For example, the engine Larian uses isn't designed to run a clock. TR works well in jRPGs where the enemies are standing in front of you in a neat row. Once you gotta start moving across a field though, it sucks. BG3 is the best example of this. Combat sucks in that game. There was a very good reason Black Isle decided to go with the IE engine. Apparently Swen was too braindead to figure out why. And look at it now. The hype has faded and no-one gives a frick any more.
Truth is, crpgs are now regressing because of convenience and frothing fanbois with no technical expertise at all make big claims based on paid Youtube influencers. It's the perfect storm of utter shit.
There are more real time JRPGs than there are CRPGs.
Hell JRPGs even do RTwP better than CRPGs
Any RPG where you control a whole party, be it Turn based or RTWP, is cringe and a pointless, inferior translation of the multiplayer tabletop experience.
RPGs in the vidya medium are at their best when you have full control (no "click on enemy and cycle through skills" shit) over your OWN character.
No thanks, I don't want to play as the Writer's OC waifubait with daddy issues. And i don't want to do it over 30 turns just to kill two random skeletons
Exactly. Even aside from the combat, what's fun about managing level ups and equipment for multiple party members? It takes forever and makes me feel like I'm playing a menu-based babysitting/management sim.
Shut up gameplaybab, we're talking serious things here like story and narrative. RPGs are more than just min-max encounters. Pathfinder was just fine, BG3 especially shows how a strong narrative is enough to brainwash the audience.
>we're talking serious things here like story and narrative. RPGs are more than just min-max encounters.
Then why apply autistic DnD rulesets to these games? Just give me something simple like stats and some scaling weapons a-la Dark Souls if narrative has to be the focus.
If you want me to focus on complex RPG mechanics the gamellay better be satisfying and immersive enough for them to matter
RTWP sounds like it would be a great cross between RTS and turn based, taking in the micromanaging skill of RTS with the ability to think and strategize in turn based combat. The reality is that the goal of every RTWP game is to get to a point where you no longer have to think about combat at all.
Every proponent of RTWP is just "turn based is too slow, RTWP is really good because combat can be over faster."
>Every proponent of RTWP is just "turn based is too slow, RTWP is really good because combat can be over faster."
Not true. I will never support turn-based because it destroys my immersion in a visual medium like video games
> Why yes I like standing around doing nothing while the game plays itself, how could you tell?
>Every proponent of RTWP is just "turn based is too slow, RTWP is really good because combat can be over faster."
lol
In RTwP gameplay you win the fight, then you unpause and watch it play out.
>pause to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
>and then you pause again to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
>and then you pause again to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
>and then you pause again to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
>and then you pause again to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
>and then you pause again to adjust your strategy
and then unpause and watch it play out
If you know what you're doing most of the time you don't need to adjust anything, you win in the buff stack alone.
>it gets good 200 hours later bro
>If you know what you're doing most of the time you don't need to adjust anything
So you are admitting that the AI is so shit it doesn't change its behavior mid-fight rendering the rtwp element of the combat obsolete to the point where they might as well go with turn based combat instead?
>In RTwP gameplay you win the fight, then you unpause and watch it play out.
>pause to adjust your strategy
>and then unpause and watch it play out
If it were genuinely starting the encounter by planning out a full strategy that takes control of the battlefield, then watching shit happen and playing an action game, pausing only to adjust the strategy, it would be good. But that's not the reality.
starts
pause, figure out your strategy
one instruction to each party member, the first step in the strategy
, start playing your character
seconds later, party members A and B are ready for the next command
>drop what you're doing with your character, pause and command the next action in your strategy
>unpause and resume playing your character in the middle of whatever action combat you were doing when you had to stop
seconds later, party member A is ready for their next command while party member B can run on autopilot for a moment (but will require another command in five seconds)
>drop what you're doing, command the next action
>unpause and resume playing your character
>>two seconds later, party member C is ready for their next command
>drop what you're doing, command the next action
>unpause and resume playing your character
>>etc
IT IS FRICKING DOGSHIT
And no, the commands are not just basic shit that barely interrupt your flow or they wouldn't be a strategy that you need to figure out and execute. The strategy is "party member A crowd controls that guy and debuffs this guy then spends the rest of the fight attacking this guy but stays ready for this other guy to use an ability to which they must respond with their own ability" and "party member B does [STEP ONE] and [STEP TWO] then waits to do [STEP 3]..." and "party member C does [...]."
IT IS FRICKING DOGSHIT
Don't forget that half of those abilities are area effect spells that you need to carefully aim so they only hit the targets they're supposed to hit. Or just barely squeeze two enemies into their radius instead of only hitting one.
Neverwinter Nights 1 baby is filtered.
CRPGs were always about being tactical RPG with party management. It is closer to Chainmail or tabletop Warhammer than to D&D in terms of controlling several characters. The sooner you would embrace, that is is a wargame in combat rather than Oblivion and is to be played like a wargame, not like Diablo, the sooner you'll have fun.
Sooooo your saying RTWP games should have no real tiem action and just be turn-based?
You need better reading comprehension, moron.
Your greentext wall clearly implies you put a priority on "your character" instead of embracing your entire party as "your characters" in combat. Which is wrong. Which leads to your complaints about shifting attention from "your character" to "party members A, B, C". You are supposed to give everyone the same priority, same attention and see your party as a team of your four characters rather than as "my character and that relativelu useful NPCs". Your attitude ruins the game for you. You are playing it wrong.
The game does that, not me as a player.
"Your character" is the one that does the most complicated tasks that require more direct control and that, in real time combat, handles like an action game instead of a commanded unit as RTWP aspires toward. Regardless of which character you are exercising that control on, you are constantly pausing/unpausing and issuing commands, interrupting the way you are controlling that character. Attitude regarding character importance has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical experience of inputting your gameplay choices. You're avoiding the actual argument being made by deflecting to something else.
>Attitude regarding character importance has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical experience of inputting your gameplay choices.
It has absolutely everything to do with it. You are controlling a team. You don't swap characters on the fly. You don't go with a "character" to do stuff. You have a team. Each character is only a part of it. When you'll understand it, you wouldn't look on issuing commands to different characters as "interruptions". Your combat gameplay is a team management. You don't pick a single squad in Total War and designate it as a most important unit only to be "interrupted" by giving commands to other squads. Same thing is here. In combat there is no "main character". There is a set of units. Each is important as a part of the set. You control a party. Basically playing strategy game. For a single character focused experience there are other games.
>you put a priority on "your character" instead of embracing your entire party as "your characters" in combat
I want to play an RPG, not a poor's man strategy game.
The problem isn't with the player, but with the devs who fail to realise certain system stemming from tabletop don't translate well to a singleplayer videogame
>I want to play an RPG, not a poor's man strategy game.
Then problem is still you, as you are playing wrong genre - party-based CRPGs ARE strategy games. Go play Oblivion or Gothic. Or ask your friends to host NWN1 multiplayer server with one of your friends being DM.
>party-based CRPGs ARE strategy games.
And it'a a shitty way to translate the strengths of tabletop RPGs to the strengths of videogames
Yes. But end result wasn't tabletop RPG despite original intentions. Therefore it should not be interpreted as a computerized TTRPG, but as a mix of a tactical strategy and point-and-click quest. The very moment you start playing it the way it is rather than the way you expect it to be you'll start having fun. Why don't you expect a battle royale shooter like Fortnite to be Minecraft with atomic reactors and redstone circuits being built by players?
No one wants to admit it but FF7R has better combat than any other RPG western or eastern.
Look, I love how flashy the new FF games' combat seems. Visually it's great.
However it's essentially the "press O to awesome" shit and it's not even that hard compared to most other RPGs where you atleast have to do a lot of shit in the overworld to allow your characters to achieve victory with button mashing.
The reason no one wants to """admit""" it is because it's objectively untrue. Frick I have played h-games with more challenging combat than FF7R.
Clearly, especially since it's not an rpg
It is though. You equip items beforehand, it's the same thing.
>You equip items beforehand
This is the essence of rpg, true.
This one act makes any turn based game, even the shittiest one, better than RTWP
Real Time With Pause died because it isn't anything close to the tabletop games CRPGs were trying to replicate.
Turn Based is the natural go-to for anything modeled off of DnD or any other, well, Turn Based pen and paper game.
it's bad
go all in realtime or turnbased
rtwp appeals to noone and upsets everyone
glad owlcat stopped doing it
RTWP is designed for you to pause to issue commands but, otherwise, everything plays out in real time with live inputs. If you need to be issuing commands, you are just constantly interrupting action gameplay. It's disruptive. It feels bad, man.
But RTWP games, combining traditional rpg combat with action, insist on non-binary abilities that require more precision than you can do in real-time multi-character combat and you end up with obnoxious micromanagement pausing to the point that it might as well just be turn-based. Your units operate the same way that you do and they can't do the same things that you will do automatically and well unless those things are simple enough that it's fricking boring for a human to execute. So you have to either let them run automatically, delegating like a squad leader does to his subordinates, and let them do the thing poorly (adequate at low difficulty, not adequate at high difficulty) or you have to manually make them do the thing the way that you would do it so it is done well. It embodies the concept of "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself." You HAVE to micromanage.
Full real time with easy to issue commands and units that you CAN'T fully control works well. You can play Mass Effect without pausing by having henchman abilities keybound and just quickly look and press and part of that is because, with the henchmen behind you, the game just has their abilities just outright hit instead of requiring line of sight and travel time (during which shit can change, making the calculated use of the ability suddenly non-deterministic).
Such games would work well if the game were designed to be """slower,""" making it fine for you to finish your chunk of action gameplay before pausing and issuing commands and then doing more action gameplay. You need the two kinds of gameplay (action and RTS) to be batched in chunks rather than constantly flickering back and forth. But you kinda can't. You have a sort of tactical clockwork and the shit you need to happen needs to happen at a particular time in a particular way. And you can't just do RTWP while making things slower because that still leaves the the ability to flicker between the two and achieve more power. The game design needs to FORCE you to not pause constantly, perhaps by making pausing a resource that you can deplete.
fable with timestop magic is the only kind of "rtwp" I tolerate
the only good implementation of it I've seen is Dragon Age Origins; the tactics screen makes all the difference
I DON'T GET IT
IT'S THE BEST SYSTEM FOR RTWP
DEADFIRE USES IT TOO
IT SOLVES LIKE 90% OF THE COMBAT FORMAT'S DOWNSIDES
>Did real time with pause die because RTS declined?
What does one have to do with the other?
The average gamer in the early 2000s/late 90s played RTS games at least once or twice and would intuitively understand what was expected of the player in a real time scenario. Between then and now, RTS is alive but a third-rate genre, and fewer people play them. Games like League and DOTA keep the general control scheme alive but they're single entity games, more disconnected than the RTS is with a RTwP RPG.
But what does rts, real time strategy, have to do with pausing.
Nothing, but it's an essential component of a real time combat system with as many mechanics as Baldur's Gate for example.
It's entirely possible to play BG1/2 without pausing for most of the game but some of the later fights would really test your keyboard micro.
RTwP in cuckold RPGs is just bad
There is no game design involved in it except cargo cult nostalgia
rtwp combines the worst of both real-time and turn-based
it is the single shittiest system ever conceived and it is no surprise that it got popularised by bioware
RTwP was always an abomination that was only made to try and lure RTS and diablo players.
The problem is that a lot of modern 'rtwp' games just take a ruleset balanced around turns (i.e. pathfinder) and tried to make it 'real-time' by just making a turn last a certain amount of time. It just feels janky as hell. Design your shit ground up and don't balance it around buffs like the pathfinder games do and you can make a decent game.
pathfinder has the perfect solution of having both tb and rtwp, people against it are just peabrained morons
I was thinking more about a game that focuses on rtwp exclusively. If your goal is to have both then yes, you can't really do better.
Pathfinder would probably be better received if the game wasn't based on a garbage ruleset and owlcat wasn't being moronic about encounter design. The real peabrained morons are ones who think that casting 10 buffs and then attack moving into a boss is peak gameplay.
filtered
Honestly the most frustrating thing about the Pathfinder games was finding out I couldn't play on the real ruleset because they'd balanced the game around CharOp homosexuals who expected to blow all their spells in one encounter and rest in the middle of the dungeon. Having to play with increased health/reduced damage because a warg in a level 3 fight has six levels in Barbarian is just bullshit.
It wouldn't be Pathfinder if you redesigned it from ground up.
>It wouldn't be bloated 3.5
Acceptable.
If you want a pathfinder game then you should make it turn based rather then.
It's just a horrible mix. It has none of the planning and strategy of turn based and none of the mechanics and action and timing of realtime.
>What if we combined every single flaw of real time and turn based with neither's strengths
I'll admit RTWP is king if anybody can post a single webm of RTWP gameplay they think looks fun. I'll wait. It doesn't even have to be a good webm, ill do it for any webm.
It was always bad and I'm glad its gone.
the most played RTS on steam that isn't ASShomosexualS is literally RTwP
Real time with pause is fricking trash, as it combines the worst aspects of real time and turn based combat into an unsalvagable mess.
There is no way to balance properly RTwP, you either have a mindless slog where you watch your party autobattle or you micromanage 60 skills and spells over 6 characters.
And you end up going back and forth between those modes regardless of difficulty settings due to the intrinsic nature of an RPG: depending on your quest order, character build and personal experience it literally impossible to have a consistent playtrough in the "sweet spot".
>a mindless slog where you watch your party autobattle or you micromanage 60 skills and spells over 6 characters.
turd-based troony literally just describing turd-based combat now
I don't understand why moronic Black folk always get mad about pausing, just don't use it
I like pausing to select abilities. In all games too, not just isometric cRPGs
>Mass Effect
Always pause to select an ability
>Witcher 1 or 2
Always pause to select spells and attack types
*is the ultimate form of RTwP near you*
RTWP pause is great, the player controls the flow.
RTWP with chance to fail sucks, since the outcome of actions is harder to keep track of, and it ruins the flow
The only good RTWP games are grand strategy games.
>wtf anon that's not even rpg you don't even fight goblins in it
Yes and that's the point isn't it. Interaction in traditional rpg combat system (only thing you can interact with really) are very unidimensional. Most encounters can be done by setting basic AI behaviours before hand and letting the thing play out. No pause needed because no real strategy is needed.
Meanwhile even in the lowest of paradox shit games, you're forced to interact with 100 of variables from diplomacy to tactics. It's possible to play those game in real time but extremely difficult due to their scope. Hence why it's the best RTWP system.
*drops mic*
I don’t care what sells more.
The two best CRPGs for combat are modded BG2 and PoE2. Beating Amelyssan with Ascension and SCS makes you feel like you really earned your godhood. The combat and character building in PoE2 are great, especially the multiclassing and all the challenges to let you customize the difficulty as you want. It’s unfortunate that almost everything else in PoE2 is mediocre or awful.