Before getting into RPGs proper, let me first annoy you all by classifying different control methods as a preamble to this post; since I've made such a classification before, let me just give you a link so you can skip it if you want to: A reply of mine in an older thread The reply concerns my continuous dislike for the increasing directness of control in RTS games, but lately I've grown a similar dislike for the indirectness of control in RPGs. [grin] Before I go on, let me restrict the discussion so that I'm mostly discussing non-first-person action-oriented RPGs here (Diablo is supposed to qualify in this category, so substitute RPGs with "RPGs" if it bothers you). The current trend seems to be in favor of making the control of the player character (PC) indirect in the sense that instead of controlling the PC directly (as in pressing "move forward"-button to move forward), the player has to give the PC commands and targets (as in clicking the target area in order to move there). In the classification behind the link I gave at the beginning, that is to say that most RPGs would be closer to the group 2 rather than 1. What annoys me is that unless the game is party-based (i.e. you only have one PC), the indirect system is inherently more cumbersome. In Diablo 2 for instance, if you try to click on an enemy in order to attack but in the heat of the battle (or due to problems in synchronization of a network game) you miss, the game interprets that as a "walk here"-command. This can lead into walking into the middle of the swarm of enemies, possibly ending up in character death. This is especially annoying when playing with a weak spellcaster, who would have used a ranged spell attack if you actually hit the enemy. Similarily you can often end up with your inventory full of junk when you get into a larger battle. In an older game, Nox, the control mechanism is very direct. You can't give targets. When you press the right mouse button, the PC walks in the direction of the cursor, but only while you actually hold the mouse button down. With the left mouse button you attack. This attack is directed at the direction of the mouse cursor, but the PC doesn't move at all, he just attacks at that direction regardless of whether there is an enemy or not. This is a very direct control mechanism and emphasizes the link between the player and the PC. In most modern RPGs you give targets (at least in most that I have played), in Nox you give actions. There is a big difference. In addition Nox separates attacking from moving, which is nice for survival. Another thing is that in Nox you configure the hotkeys for actually casting spells, not for choosing spells (i.e. pressing the hotkey casts the spell at the direction of the cursor instead of choosing it for casting). This is another measure of directness (albeit not directly related to the target/action-discrimination) which makes casting different spells in a successive fashion much more user-friendly. So what do you think, fellow gamers? Is the RPG genre really in the need for a reform of control systems in the sense of directness or am I just babbling nonsense? What do you see as the pros and cons of both degrees of directness?

Quote:

Original post by Grim Before getting into RPGs proper, let me first annoy you all by classifying different control methods as a preamble to this post; since I've made such a classification before, let me just give you a link so you can skip it if you want to: A reply of mine in an older thread The reply concerns my continuous dislike for the increasing directness of control in RTS games, but lately I've grown a similar dislike for the indirectness of control in RPGs. [grin] Before I go on, let me restrict the discussion so that I'm mostly discussing non-first-person action-oriented RPGs here (Diablo is supposed to qualify in this category, so substitute RPGs with "RPGs" if it bothers you). The current trend seems to be in favor of making the control of the player character (PC) indirect in the sense that instead of controlling the PC directly (as in pressing "move forward"-button to move forward), the player has to give the PC commands and targets (as in clicking the target area in order to move there). In the classification behind the link I gave at the beginning, that is to say that most RPGs would be closer to the group 2 rather than 1. What annoys me is that unless the game is party-based (i.e. you only have one PC), the indirect system is inherently more cumbersome. In Diablo 2 for instance, if you try to click on an enemy in order to attack but in the heat of the battle (or due to problems in synchronization of a network game) you miss, the game interprets that as a "walk here"-command. This can lead into walking into the middle of the swarm of enemies, possibly ending up in character death. This is especially annoying when playing with a weak spellcaster, who would have used a ranged spell attack if you actually hit the enemy. Similarily you can often end up with your inventory full of junk when you get into a larger battle. In an older game, Nox, the control mechanism is very direct. You can't give targets. When you press the right mouse button, the PC walks in the direction of the cursor, but only while you actually hold the mouse button down. With the left mouse button you attack. This attack is directed at the direction of the mouse cursor, but the PC doesn't move at all, he just attacks at that direction regardless of whether there is an enemy or not. This is a very direct control mechanism and emphasizes the link between the player and the PC. In most modern RPGs you give targets (at least in most that I have played), in Nox you give actions. There is a big difference. In addition Nox separates attacking from moving, which is nice for survival. Another thing is that in Nox you configure the hotkeys for actually casting spells, not for choosing spells (i.e. pressing the hotkey casts the spell at the direction of the cursor instead of choosing it for casting). This is another measure of directness (albeit not directly related to the target/action-discrimination) which makes casting different spells in a successive fashion much more user-friendly. So what do you think, fellow gamers? Is the RPG genre really in the need for a reform of control systems in the sense of directness or am I just babbling nonsense? What do you see as the pros and cons of both degrees of directness?

I haven't really played action-oriented RPGs.. Too much of a hassle to control them :) But I think Baldur's Gate series had a good control system and also Neverwinter Nights. The pause is very, very useful. It's nice to take some time to review what's actually going on in the battle field.

I haven't played Nox but your description sounds that it could be hard to control. At least I don't like the idea of constantly keeping down my mouse button to attack or move. But of course, in practice, the system could be very good. I haven't tried it. Is there a pause key in Diablo 2? It could have been the solution to the problem where you miss-click in the heat of the battle..

The basic problem of action oriented RPGs is that you don't have time to think and review your strategies. Those kind of games easily become a click-fest where reflexes matter more than your character and your strategies.

I think for isometric games mouse control, where you just assign target, is better. First person or close third person games probably work better with more direct control system.

Yes, non-directiveness can become a problem in certain situations. There isn't much of a standard for controlled actions, just controls themselves. I have been pondering about a system that uses voice commands instead of any sort of complex control schemes. The main reason for this is because the game I have in mind has a complex combat system, and a need for precision timing as well as the ability to bring strategy into an action/rpg styled combat.

The only way I could think of allowing players to cast a fireball at varying costs at anytime in the middle of combat was voice commands. Voice commands also solved the problem involved with running skills that require a maintenance cost. Basically, voice commands are the only thing that would make my game idea work. It was the only way to give enough power to the player. Movement and other things are still controlled normally. Everything is done quickly, smoothly, and easily.

Quote:

Original post by tentoid I haven't really played action-oriented RPGs.. Too much of a hassle to control them :) But I think Baldur's Gate series had a good control system and also Neverwinter Nights. The pause is very, very useful. It's nice to take some time to review what's actually going on in the battle field. I haven't played Nox but your description sounds that it could be hard to control. At least I don't like the idea of constantly keeping down my mouse button to attack or move. But of course, in practice, the system could be very good. I haven't tried it. Is there a pause key in Diablo 2? It could have been the solution to the problem where you miss-click in the heat of the battle..

As for having to keep the mouse button pressed, well, direct control has its downsides, as all control systems do. To be honest, I'd prefer if you could move as in a first-person game (yet with axonometric projection view from above); that is, move using the keyboard and aim using the mouse. This way you could move and fight at the same time, which is quite impossible in most Diabloesque games at present. You can actually move with the keyboard in Neverwinter Nights, but as the combat system is target-based (thus attacking will often imply automatic moving), attacking often wreaks havoc on the keyboard movement.

Diablo 2 has no pause key in the mentality of Baldur's Gate; in single player you can pause the game by activating the in-game menu, but you couldn't give any commands there. Now, a pause mode would solve many of the problems indeed, but still it has some drawbacks:

• Pausing the game hinders adrenaline flow. [rolleyes]


• A pause mode could really hamper multiplayer games. As long as everybody is working together and don't mind the slower pace it can work, but even in those situations it can start to annoy the players who pause less often.


• While the pause mode allows you to give orders and e.g. reinstate the attack command after accidentally missing the enemy, it still has the fundamental flaw that you will make that miss every now and then have to pause, fix the situation and continue. It'd be as annoying. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but the main philosophy here is that giving the player a workaround for a problem is not solving the problem.

The pause mode is not a bad idea per se, though, as far as single player is concerned, even in a more directly controlled game. Then again, if you want to allow the player to have the power to pause the game and give commands while in pause mode, you could then go all the way and make it a turn-based game. And there's nothing wrong with turn-based combat.

And for the sake of argument, using the pause at critical moments can require some reflexes as well.

Quote:

The basic problem of action oriented RPGs is that you don't have time to think and review your strategies. Those kind of games easily become a click-fest where reflexes matter more than your character and your strategies.

Alas, that is very true. I'd think the problem is that the pace is "too" fast, and in most games you get very little information in advance regarding who you are going to fight (at least in Diabloesque games; what I mean is that if you're going to a fight, planning on using fire spells, it will end up being a very bad tactical decision if they turn out to be immune to fire. However, Diabloesque games seldom warn you about this in the manner of hearing gossip in the tavern along the lines "there are fire elementals in the valley of eternal carnage, so beware", which would allow you to make this kind of tactical decision even before the actual battle commences). I do admit that this kind of directness fits mainly in the more action-oriented (or even player-oriented) hack-n-slash-RPGs.

As for emphasizing the character, I wouldn't necessarily even think it's really a job of the combat system. Of course the character's attributes have implications on combat, such as spellcasters using spells instead of swords, but I'd say the character should be important in non-combat situations such as dialogues or using non-combat skills.

Ignoring the fact that you could pause the game, Neverwinter Nights had a relatively good combat system. While it was heavily indirect in many ways, it was not too fast-paced for tactical thinking (as it was basically turn-based yet with a dynamic feel).

Would it be possible to reduce the pace of combat in a game that has a more direct control system on to a level on which tactical thinking was possible yet still not losing the credibility of the combat? Or how could you allow the player to be tactical and still keep the combat action-packed and real-time?

Quote:

Original post by KingRuss The only way I could think of allowing players to cast a fireball at varying costs at anytime in the middle of combat was voice commands. Voice commands also solved the problem involved with running skills that require a maintenance cost. Basically, voice commands are the only thing that would make my game idea work. It was the only way to give enough power to the player. Movement and other things are still controlled normally. Everything is done quickly, smoothly, and easily.

I would parallel voice commands to keyboard hotkeys (or even hotkey sequences of relatively short length). You could insist that voice commands are easier to remember but for instance I'm much better at typing than speaking, so it depends on the player. Hotkeys (or hotkey sequences) can be quite powerful too, if you allow the player to configure them completely (making it possible to create macros etc. for instance a hotkey for drinking a health potion but only if health is below 25% or maybe a sequence of different item crafting and enchanting actions). One neat thing you could do with voice commands though is that if the casting of spells needs syllables to be uttered or speaking in tongues (some sort of ritual magic, I'd reckon), the player actually has to recite the spells.

However, the only times I actually even consider speaking to my computer is when something goes wrong, such as the aforementioned missing-the-enemy-and-walking-directly-into-certain-death-scenario, and usually my vocabulary in those situations transforms into something I'd rather not demonstrate here for the sake of civility... Then again, the game could use this as another control: "if the player starts to speak very loudly and in an ungentlemanly manner, cancel the last command." That could actually work... [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Grim Quote: Original post by tentoid I haven't really played action-oriented RPGs.. Too much of a hassle to control them :) But I think Baldur's Gate series had a good control system and also Neverwinter Nights. The pause is very, very useful. It's nice to take some time to review what's actually going on in the battle field. I haven't played Nox but your description sounds that it could be hard to control. At least I don't like the idea of constantly keeping down my mouse button to attack or move. But of course, in practice, the system could be very good. I haven't tried it. Is there a pause key in Diablo 2? It could have been the solution to the problem where you miss-click in the heat of the battle.. As for having to keep the mouse button pressed, well, direct control has its downsides, as all control systems do. To be honest, I'd prefer if you could move as in a first-person game (yet with axonometric projection view from above); that is, move using the keyboard and aim using the mouse. This way you could move and fight at the same time, which is quite impossible in most Diabloesque games at present. You can actually move with the keyboard in Neverwinter Nights, but as the combat system is target-based (thus attacking will often imply automatic moving), attacking often wreaks havoc on the keyboard movement.

A game called Notrium has done movement in a similiar way. You move the character with the keyboard and aim and manipulate objects with the mouse.

Quote:

Diablo 2 has no pause key in the mentality of Baldur's Gate; in single player you can pause the game by activating the in-game menu, but you couldn't give any commands there. Now, a pause mode would solve many of the problems indeed, but still it has some drawbacks: Pausing the game hinders adrenaline flow. [rolleyes] A pause mode could really hamper multiplayer games. As long as everybody is working together and don't mind the slower pace it can work, but even in those situations it can start to annoy the players who pause less often. While the pause mode allows you to give orders and e.g. reinstate the attack command after accidentally missing the enemy, it still has the fundamental flaw that you will make that miss every now and then have to pause, fix the situation and continue. It'd be as annoying. I'm not trying to flame you or anything, but the main philosophy here is that giving the player a workaround for a problem is not solving the problem.

1) Of course, you don't HAVE to use the pause key :)
2) You could take out the pause command for multiplayer games - it wouldn't be fun if other players could pause your game. Did Baldur's Gate have pause available when playing in multiplayer mode? I can't remember..
3) Well, what ever the controls are, the player will probably always miss keys and give wrong commands. (Just move your fingers into a slightly wrong position and that's that..) Perhaps the ideal situtation would be a mind<->computer link? ;)

Quote:

The pause mode is not a bad idea per se, though, as far as single player is concerned, even in a more directly controlled game. Then again, if you want to allow the player to have the power to pause the game and give commands while in pause mode, you could then go all the way and make it a turn-based game. And there's nothing wrong with turn-based combat.

Well, sometimes it is nice to just use realtime mode and not pausing at all during a battle. For example, when facing very easy monsters. In Fallout it was annoying when facing a big pack of rats or some other easy monsters. It took ages to fry all of them with your plasma rifle, thanks to the turn-based combat.

Quote:

And for the sake of argument, using the pause at critical moments can require some reflexes as well.

True.. But you could add option to automate the pausing, for example when the player is critically hit.

Quote:

Quote: The basic problem of action oriented RPGs is that you don't have time to think and review your strategies. Those kind of games easily become a click-fest where reflexes matter more than your character and your strategies. Alas, that is very true. I'd think the problem is that the pace is "too" fast, and in most games you get very little information in advance regarding who you are going to fight (at least in Diabloesque games; what I mean is that if you're going to a fight, planning on using fire spells, it will end up being a very bad tactical decision if they turn out to be immune to fire. However, Diabloesque games seldom warn you about this in the manner of hearing gossip in the tavern along the lines "there are fire elementals in the valley of eternal carnage, so beware", which would allow you to make this kind of tactical decision even before the actual battle commences). I do admit that this kind of directness fits mainly in the more action-oriented (or even player-oriented) hack-n-slash-RPGs.

Well, you can use level design as a hint. For example, fire elementals usually live in hot and fiery areas.. Just place lots of fire and burnt stuff everywhere before facing the monsters. If the player can't connect the dots, that's his/her problem ;)

Quote:

As for emphasizing the character, I wouldn't necessarily even think it's really a job of the combat system. Of course the character's attributes have implications on combat, such as spellcasters using spells instead of swords, but I'd say the character should be important in non-combat situations such as dialogues or using non-combat skills.

I am not sure if this is true, but I have the feeling that most action-oriented RPGs have a huge lack of dialogue.. mostly just Hack'n'Slash. There should be more emphasis on the non-combat situations, in my opinion.

Quote:

Ignoring the fact that you could pause the game, Neverwinter Nights had a relatively good combat system. While it was heavily indirect in many ways, it was not too fast-paced for tactical thinking (as it was basically turn-based yet with a dynamic feel). Would it be possible to reduce the pace of combat in a game that has a more direct control system on to a level on which tactical thinking was possible yet still not losing the credibility of the combat? Or how could you allow the player to be tactical and still keep the combat action-packed and real-time?

I am sure it is possible :) Basically you just need good controls (direct controls of course make it easier to react fast), slow enough game speed and a large enough view area. Perhaps 3rd person action games (Tomb Raider etc.) could serve as a good example on how to implement controls. The most difficult task is to make the controls for special abilities (spells, backstabbing) easy to use.

Baldur's Gate certainly did have pause in multiplayer; me and my friend used it liberally since it was the only reasonable way to avoid getting slaughtered on a regular basis.

The hold-and-point control method worked ok for me in Ultima 7 but I know a lot of people disliked it. I think it might get tiring after a while.

I think the point-and-click system is not so bad if you get good feedback on where you're clicking. Often you don't know whether you clicked on the target or not until you see what your character does upon approaching that point. In Diablo you could end up stood still next to someone who's attacking you, and in Baldur's Gate I often ended up wrongly approaching a creature I was trying to shoot at long range. If it had given instant and obvious feedback on what I clicked on, I could cancel the order more quickly. Better still, highlight whatever my cursor is hovering over, to make my clicks more accurate.

Didn't diablo have a button that you could hold that could "lock" your character in place? I believe it was mostly to solve problems with the archer/rogue-type who was entirely ranged and did LOTs of clicking.

Console action RPGs get it "right", on the action side of things anyway. On the PS2, Baldurs' Gate: Dark Alliance and Champions of Norrath, for example. The left analogue stick controls movement, move the stick away from neutral and your character moves in that direction. An attack is just a click of a button, causing your character to attack in the general direction he's facing (for ranged attacks, your skill determines how well you have to "aim" manually before you actually hit something).
The reason a control system like this doesn't happen for 3rd person PC games is that the mouse doesn't have a neutral zero position, and in any case, the mouse is simply not used like that generally. It's used for object manipulation on the screen, not for directional input.

For PC games, usually the complexity level is a little higher than console games, so designers think it's okay not to think things through and design menu structures and input interfaces a bazillion layers deep. And then they push the pace down so far the game becomes dull, just to make sure that you can reach the relevant layers of the menu in time. You can't play fast even if you wanted to.

One method that could combine both in a way that might not destroy the pace, if you wanted it, is direct-input, but turn-based. As long as the mouse is only moving, time does not pass. As soon as you click somewhere, you "take your turn". Left-click is attack, if you click on an attackable target, or movement if you are clicking the landscape. Add some feedback in the form of a tooltip-like blurb, or perhaps just highlighting for usability. Right-click can be bound to whatever you wish, and you might use the ALT, SHIFT and CONTROL modifiers for additional actions (that's another 6 possible instant actions in single combinations, enough for most spell-casting even, I'd think). Combined with some hotkeys for specific items or usage, you can still play fast (if you click fast, time passes quickly), but you have all the time you need to click correctly.

Quote:

Original post by Grim I would parallel voice commands to keyboard hotkeys (or even hotkey sequences of relatively short length). You could insist that voice commands are easier to remember but for instance I'm much better at typing than speaking, so it depends on the player. Hotkeys (or hotkey sequences) can be quite powerful too, if you allow the player to configure them completely (making it possible to create macros etc. for instance a hotkey for drinking a health potion but only if health is below 25% or maybe a sequence of different item crafting and enchanting actions). One neat thing you could do with voice commands though is that if the casting of spells needs syllables to be uttered or speaking in tongues (some sort of ritual magic, I'd reckon), the player actually has to recite the spells.

Yeah, hotkeys are nice, but in my circumstance I don't think they would fan out well. First, you have the ability to alter the amount of energy you use when casting any spell. This adjustment is made on-the-fly, as there are many circumastances in which you would want to use less than full-power, and full-power in succession. There are also the moves which require maintenance costs I was referring to. You have the ability to toggle them on and off at will, and can possess a handful of them. In addition, your defensive stances can be changed on-the-fly. What you end up having is something that would require too many keys to remember, considering you need direct control over any of these skills at any one time. The amount of strategy it adds to an action based system is just great. I'm great at typing, but it would require too much action and leave too many chances for mistake, when voice commands have a much better execution.

Quote:

Original post by tentoid 1) Of course, you don't HAVE to use the pause key :) 2) You could take out the pause command for multiplayer games - it wouldn't be fun if other players could pause your game. Did Baldur's Gate have pause available when playing in multiplayer mode? I can't remember.. 3) Well, what ever the controls are, the player will probably always miss keys and give wrong commands. (Just move your fingers into a slightly wrong position and that's that..) Perhaps the ideal situtation would be a mind<->computer link? ;)

1) ...unless the game was balanced with the premise that the player will use the pause key. After all, the game difficulty is more or less dependent on the user interface. If the UI makes things easy for the player, the actual game is made more difficult in order to compensate.
2) If the game was designed to be mostly a multiplayer game, this would be a bit silly.
3) For safety reasons I would rather make that mind->computer link (one way only) [lol]. Still, your point is valid, even though I would say that when the hotkeys are chosen well and close together (and not mnemonically with regard to the name of the action, as way too many games like to do), it will be less probable that you give the wrong command than if you had to pixel-hunt with the mouse. Besides, usually both the direct and the indirect systems have hotkeys, so the problem prevails in both.

Quote:

Quote: And for the sake of argument, using the pause at critical moments can require some reflexes as well. True.. But you could add option to automate the pausing, for example when the player is critically hit.

Ah, yes... That's very true. I forgot about that completely. The problem is that the system doesn't autopause when the player accidentally miss-clicks the enemy and starts walking in the middle of a swarm of enemies. [wink]

Quote:

Well, you can use level design as a hint. For example, fire elementals usually live in hot and fiery areas.. Just place lots of fire and burnt stuff everywhere before facing the monsters. If the player can't connect the dots, that's his/her problem ;)

That is another splendid example of what I meant with giving information in advance; it doesn't have to really be from tavern gossip or dialogues at all. Seeing a small white rabbit in front of a cave with heaps of bones lying about should indeed alarm the player, but not many Diabloesque games use such hints. Usually levels are covered with fire and bones to set the mood, not to give information. Even with elements to set the mood and ambience, everything should be there for a concrete reason.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan The hold-and-point control method worked ok for me in Ultima 7 but I know a lot of people disliked it. I think it might get tiring after a while.

But is there something fundamentally annoying in the hold-and-point system or are people just used to give commands instead of making actions? After all, most Diabloesque games use the point-and-click system, so people are more used to that.

Quote:

Original post by zarthrag Didn't diablo have a button that you could hold that could "lock" your character in place? I believe it was mostly to solve problems with the archer/rogue-type who was entirely ranged and did LOTs of clicking.

Yes, indeed it did! I had forgotten that completely as well... In fact, this solves the problem, provisionally. While it makes using hotkeys a bit more cumbersome, it does solve the problem of accidentally walking to an enemy when you tried to attack.

While all these suggestion would make the system work better, the original problem would remain: you are still not in control but rather giving commands. You are not one with the character, but rather the character is your subordinate. It might sound as if I was stubbornly opposing all the improvements on the command-based system (such as pausing and feedback), but I'm not doing this out of spite and reluctance to change; I'm mainly trying to make a point that the command-based system and the action-based system are fundamentally different, as the command-based system is indirect. If you tell the character to do something, the character will probably do something analogue to what you were thinking, sooner or later; the separation between the player and the character is larger than in the action-based system, in which whatever you choose as an action, the character does immediately, if it can be done. It is different on a very fundamental level.

When playing Diablo 2 (indirect) and accidentally clicking somewhere where I didn't want to, I think to myself "O why did you do that you %#¤"%"??!", whereas in Nox (direct) I would think "now why did I do that?". Might sound like a moot point, but I find it easier to identify with the main character if I actually have direct control.

What do you think? Is there a point to this discrimination of directness or am I just being stubborn and maniacal? [rolleyes]

Quote:

Original post by MadKeithV Console action RPGs get it "right", on the action side of things anyway. On the PS2, Baldurs' Gate: Dark Alliance and Champions of Norrath, for example. The left analogue stick controls movement, move the stick away from neutral and your character moves in that direction. An attack is just a click of a button, causing your character to attack in the general direction he's facing (for ranged attacks, your skill determines how well you have to "aim" manually before you actually hit something). The reason a control system like this doesn't happen for 3rd person PC games is that the mouse doesn't have a neutral zero position, and in any case, the mouse is simply not used like that generally. It's used for object manipulation on the screen, not for directional input.

...except in FPSs, where you aim using the mouse. Of course, this depends on your point of view, but you can think that the neutral zero position of the mouse is the state in which the mouse doesn't move, i.e. focus on the velocity of the mouse instead of the position.

In the system Nox uses, the offset from the main character to the cursor position on the screen is considered a direction and the general direction of the character is altered corresponding to that direction. Other than that (and the fact that in order to move, you have to hold the right mouse button), the description you gave to the exemplary games fits rather well the Nox system.

Quote:

One method that could combine both in a way that might not destroy the pace, if you wanted it, is direct-input, but turn-based. As long as the mouse is only moving, time does not pass. As soon as you click somewhere, you "take your turn". Left-click is attack, if you click on an attackable target, or movement if you are clicking the landscape. [...]

Interesting idea, even though multiplayer games could develop into something quite chaotic using this method... [grin] Still, I would not consider it direct as moving is more of a command rather than an atomic action.

Another question that came to mind reading that is that how would you make a multiplayer game with the realtime/turn-based-world as in Fallout? I mean, combat is turn-based, but everything else realtime. A similar question would arise from the system described above? Should time be somehow mystically local, in the sense that in different areas the world is realtime and in some areas turn-based? Sounds eery, and is actually a bit off-topic, so I won't spend more time on that right now.