A lot of games are allowing people to alter the game speed however they wish. This is obviously a good idea in many cases. But what type of games wouldn''t benefit from this? What would games like diablo be if you could set it up so that it slowed down when entering combat? This could probably be considered a mix of turnbased and realtime combat/yes? But would it ruin the gameplay of an crpg if the computer automated slowdown sequences just for combat? I''m thinking that it might take away a bit of the adrenaline rush from these combat orientated games. I love Game Design and it loves me back. Our Goal is "Fun"!

If you''ve ever played Revenant (an FPS where you''re an angel), you''ll see a perfect example of when this is a bad idea. Revenant had a spell where you could slow down time. It was great in a pinch, and cool to watch, but they gave it to you so much that it was almost like a game speed control. I eventually realized it was ruining the game for me, but when I tried to discipline myself to not use it I largely failed. It definitely killed some of the intensity of the firefights

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Yeah, that''s exactly what i''m worried about. It might be best to have these things planned out in the game rather than letting the player control these game elements. I know that the last 2 fps''s i played that slowing down the game could be done be the player. The problem was was that i always used it as well. It can be like a cheat code in many ways.

Paul,

Just another thought: Have you ever played Incubation? If you haven''t it''s sort of like Quake meets X-Com, a turn-based tactical game in 3D.

The game missed the mark on a lot of areas, but they did something pretty cool: Some (not enough, unfortunately) turns were made **REAAALLY** intense by the addition of non-interactive animation sequences. I remember, for instance, moving my squad thru and abandoned warehouse, ending my turn, and having a nicely animed sequence of a roaring monster jumping over a partition to land in front of my team.

It made for some tense waiting and adrenaline even tho'' it was turn based.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Yeah i have played incubation and loved it. The problem here is as you said, that game was turn based but what i''m thinking about is realtime combat. I guess i''ll just have to give it a lot more thought.

I liked what Baldure''s Gate 2 did, It''s real time but give you the option to pause to make it more turn based.

I''m not sure about everyone else but I can''t handel 6 character''s in combat with 6 seconds per a round.

This is kinda off the topic but anyway.

quote: Original post by DarkAngel16

I liked what Baldure''s Gate 2 did, It''s real time but give you the option to pause to make it more turn based.

I''m not sure about everyone else but I can''t handel 6 character''s in combat with 6 seconds per a round.

This is kinda off the topic but anyway.

It depends, in Baldur''s Gate you could die quite easily. If you removed that factor then it would probably be quite entertaining handling muliple characters in a real time combat system. But i definity agree with your argument in relation to Baldur''s Gate.



"So your the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

Baldur''s Gate and X-COM Apocalypse (the first game using the adjustable real time pacing model ever) are games that focus on strategy. In the old days such games would have been turn based - but time moves on, so adjustable real-time pacing is a good alternative to turn based games. It should not be used for action paced games because, as you all say, it can ruin them. For me it ruined Warzone 2100.

However, if you are writing a game with some action and with the need to slow things down sometimes I would recommend mixing it with in game schemes such as giving an XP penalty (or something equivalent) for all action during slow downs or even letting the player choose the timing terms at the start of the game: Easy - slow down freely, Medium - slow down to half speed, Hard - no slowing down.

Another alternative is to use "pausing points", that are expended when the system is paused and they are regenerated slowly during non-pauses. This way pauses are punished by forcing the player to wait for them to regenerate.

These things and many more are discussed in the requirements analysis and definition of my own Project. See it at www.rolemaker.dk. It is quite detailed as it is being turned in as a master''s thesis in CompSci.

Jacob Marner

Thank you very much Jacob. I really like the idea of pausing points, i''ll definity give it some thought. I''ll also check out you site. Thanks.

Paul

"So you're the one that designed that game are you?"
*Gulp* "Umm, yeah"

Since this idea is picking up steam for me, I''ll plug it again here: Cover.

One of the main reasons you can''t have blazing fast action and detailed decision making is because you need time to stop and think. Turn-based is practically no good, because it interrupts the adrenaline. But let''s look at what action movies for our inspiration:

What does the good guy do when he has to reload? Or talk to his mates? Or bandage a wound? He takes cover!

You don''t have to stop the action with this, then, and it''s natural. You can still create suspense and drama (heck, even more so) since the bad guys may still be bearing down on you. But a few pop shots (thinking guns here) will keep them from rushing ya! (To make this work, I''d say suppressing fire and enemies that don''t always charge blindly would be key.)

I think this would be much more natural than pause points or what not. In fact, for a tactical action mix like I''m thinking about, cover would give you time to click UI, script or set AI options, then, just like in the movies, you''d pop back up and continue your blazing battle.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...