Well, I am planning a game that is a turn-based wargame. I''m going to freshen it up a bit though. I won''t do the, one side does his turn, other side then gets his turn. I will basically be done with action points ala Fallout. Unfortunately, the player won''t be able to stop and think, "Duh, what should I do" for very long. It will have some realtime elements so you have to think fast. Units will have a action bar that continually climbs. They can actually attack, move, defend, even when the bar isn''t full. A penalty will be assigned based on how much percentage of the bar there was left before doing the action. 75% of the bar filled will be needed for a maximum attack. This will allow units to advance slowly and still keep an offensive edge. I thought it would make it a bit more realistic. 100% will basically mean the unit is fortified at the position, and the unit will get maximum defense points. Different units types have strengths over others. Also, terrain types give pluses and minuses to attack/defense/movement. Basic stuff really. I have alot of other things I want to impliment.

This game will basically have a dark futuristic setting. I am basically building a portfolio of games to show industry bigwigs when I get my CS degree. This is my "2d innovative design" game. I''m just building the tools right now though. It sure does take quite a while. Anyway, I plan on making a simple 3d multiplayer space shooter (save me from doing alot of models/art). Still, I will probably do alot of work on it to make it look impressive. I think that is about all I can expect to create by myself in 3 years. Hopefully that will be enough though.

I think I will stop rambling now...

quote: Original post by pan narrans
But game developers will make what they think will sell. Personally, I am still lamenting the death of 2D adventures, sniffle

Yeah, I loved old adventure games also. In my opinion all of the most detailed stories\settings and all of the best humor in games has been in old text and 2D adventure games. They also tended to have the best characters and dialog, better than console RPGs that everyone uses as examples of games with great stories.

The problem is in the gameplay... Although console RPGs have interesting stories and flawed gameplay (IMHO) adventure games had even worse gameplay. You can make a relatively simple FPS with good technology that''s still fun to play, but if you don''t design the puzzles right in an adventure game you''re screwed. There is no one puzzle formula, puzzles vary a lot, so you need to have a very good designer behind them.

Then there''s the bigger problem, adventure games force you to think like the designer. Most adventure games have only one or two solutions for any puzzle and those solutions usually don''t follow common sense. For example, if you want to get into a warehouse with high security, using a chicken on a homeless guy that''s afraid of chickens so he runs away from his box so you can get the box and sneak into the warehouse isn''t necessarily the most logical way to go about the problem. The gameplay basically boils down to you clicking random stuff with random items trying to find out what reacts and a lot of the time isn''t very much fun. I think adventure games could (and maybe will) comeback in a similar style with more emergent gameplay. Instead of designing specific puzzles, the gameplay would have to be built around more flexible systems. This is way off topic, but I needed the quote. New thread?

Wow. It seems I''m not the only one that still appreciates the classic 2D turn-based RPGs. It''s good to know that the one I''m working on now will actually have an audience outside my friends when it''s done. One thing I''m trying to do now is to work out all the common problems these games seem to have like casting Ultima over and over or having one super character while everyone else is weak. I''ve got a couple ideas on how to do this, but luckily I won''t be starting the battle system until next week, so if anyone has any ideas on what can be done to make a turn-based RPG battle system more fun, feel free to let me know.

Do you think a player would be upset if a game mimiced real-time but was based on a turn based design?

quote: Original post by Zefrieg
Well, I am planning a game that is a turn-based wargame. I''m going to freshen it up a bit though. I won''t do the, one side does his turn, other side then gets his turn. I will basically be done with action points ala Fallout. Unfortunately, the player won''t be able to stop and think, "Duh, what should I do" for very long. It will have some realtime elements so you have to think fast. Units will have a action bar that continually climbs. They can actually attack, move, defend, even when the bar isn''t full. A penalty will be assigned based on how much percentage of the bar there was left before doing the action.

This sounds a combination of the worst of both real time and turn-based.

When I play turn-based, I want to be able to sit there and go "Duh...". I may well go eat dinner, watch some TV, then return and make my move. That''s the incredible advantage of turn-based. It fits into your life, instead of forcing you to play on someone elses schedule.

When I play real-time, I want immediate gratification. I want my guys to run around like morons and shoot everything that moves. I don''t want game-induced lag.

its a bit late-in-the-thread... but my 2-pence:

anyone ever played XCOM-Apocalypse? that was possibly the greatest implementation of turn based AND realtime I''ve ever seen. Love that game

you could choose between strict turn-by-turn play, and then a real-time mode that worked as you''d expect, but you could also look around / make orders while the game was paused.

My preferred method was to play it realtime (much more exciting) and then pause it when it got hectic, take a couple of steps back, rethink my plans and reissue orders - then ''play'' again...

This gameplay system will work well for both types of gamers imo.

Jack

DirectX 4 VB: All you need for multimedia programming in Visual Basic
Formula 1 Championship Manager, My Game Project.

For those of you that have not seen it ... Laser Squad Nemesis, by the makers of X-Com, is realtime/turnbase hybrid where you make your moves via email. Each "turn" is equivalent to 10 seconds of real time, you issue your commands, and send them to your opponent (via email), the central server processes the moves, and sends the result to the opponent. He sees the 10 seconds that just elapsed, issues his commands, and starts the process again.

It''s a great game that allows The Hectictm to enjoy a good game without having to dedicate a lot of time at once.

Joel Martinez
http://www.codecube.net/

this arguement is kind of useless, because there is no real logical way to make one the other and vice versa. rpg/turn based are designed for "my party sees your party, we close in, and have a meelee." fps and non turn based are made to hone your reflexes, and to be able to ambush someone, etc. if you have played c-s , then you know that all you need is a steady hand, kick ass reflexes, and a bottle or three of bawls. in a turn based, you don''t need be in complete control of your char. the turn based relies on you for the big idea, and then the computer following up with the small decisions, and calculations. the fps/ rts need the player to make the small decions, then follows with calculation of the big picture. the 2 archtypes are made for 2 different classes of people. you cannot ever think about making one appeall to the other audience.

quote: Original post by gabrielconradi
... the 2 archtypes are made for 2 different classes of people. you cannot ever think about making one appeall to the other audience.

Are you sure? How is it that I love Alpha Centeuri and Warcraft III then? I am confused!

My partner and I partner made a turn based game. So, in a way, I can''t knock turn based games. On the other hand, I really think turn based games only exist because of either, the limitations of table top gaming, or the limitations of early consoles and computers.

It''s very hard to have a real time table top game of any complexity. But am I wrong in thinking that even on an NES you couldn''t put the complexity of a turn based game in real time? Now your character stats and battle engines for an rpg can be as complex as you want. The only limiting factor is the player''s patience with dealing with such systems.

Now that this is possible, is it really desirable to play or make a turn based game? Outside of nostalgia, the only reason that seems to be left for making a turn based game is that it allows for more strategic thinking. This may be true in multiplayer, but in single player I think that what I call "real time pausing" trumps turn based play.

The Baldurs Gate games, Freedom Force, and Kings Feild are all examples of what I''m talking about. You can pause at any time, use a potion, decide on a course of action, sometimes even change equipment, but you play in a real time world once your un-pause. This, to me, is the best of both worlds. You get the excitement and immersion of realtime, and the strategy and unhurried thinking of a turn based game.

Beat monsters to death with a lollypop.
www.happybigfun.com