Hello Devs,

Being a slave to my own creativity I have begun an idea sheet for yet another game concept. This time I am exploring an isometric-view, third person (obviously) RPG, not unlike Diablo 2 and countless Black Isle titles. At this moment I can't decide whether I should try my luck with a throwback to the turned-based systems of yore, or take the tried-n-true hack & slash route.

Question:
As far as isometric RPGs go, Do you enjoy diablo-esque dungeon crawlers, or games more akin to Baulder's Gate and Planescape Tourment? On which system(s) would you ideally play such a game? Any features/mechanics you would like to see or bring back?

I appreciate your input!

Hello Devs,

Being a slave to my own creativity I have begun an idea sheet for yet another game concept. This time I am exploring an isometric-view, third person (obviously) RPG, not unlike Diablo 2 and countless Black Isle titles. At this moment I can't decide whether I should try my luck with a throwback to the turned-based systems of yore, or take the tried-n-true hack & slash route.

Question:
As far as isometric RPGs go, Do you enjoy diablo-esque dungeon crawlers, or games more akin to Baulder's Gate and Planescape Tourment? On which system(s) would you ideally play such a game? Any features/mechanics you would like to see or bring back?

I appreciate your input!

I don't know that anyone has the patience for turn based RPGs these days. It's mostly about instant feedback and gratification. Also, most turn based RPGs don't offer enough tactical depth to really be worth selecting actions while the game is effectively paused.

I like both style of games. Diablo is a lot of fun, but I also liked Baldurs gate and Torment a lot.

Also, most turn based RPGs don't offer enough tactical depth to really be worth selecting actions while the game is effectively paused.
[/quote]

In Baldur's gate you could control a party of more than one character. It is hard to issue commands to each without being able to pause the game.

You could compromise with a real time plus pause to give orders system.
Personally the only tactics game I have played with enough depth to justify being turn based is x-com.

I like both style of games. Diablo is a lot of fun, but I also liked Baldurs gate and Torment a lot.

Also, most turn based RPGs don't offer enough tactical depth to really be worth selecting actions while the game is effectively paused.

In Baldur's gate you could control a party of more than one character. It is hard to issue commands to each without being able to pause the game.
[/quote]

And most of the time the actions you take with that character are the same (attack until you're low on health then move away and heal). This sort of micromanagement is much better suited to a configurable AI.

You could compromise with a real time plus pause to give orders system.
Personally the only tactics game I have played with enough depth to justify being turn based is x-com.

I pretty much agree. So much love for that game. You should check out Frozen Synapse.

I like both. I tend to like turn-based more because for some reason the story in those games is more compelling to me, although I admit that the battle systems are usually awful. But hack-n-slash can be bad as well. If all you're doing is clicking an enemy until its dead most of the time, I call that a failure of a battle system.

Looking at it from a strictly game mechanics point of view, I find myself increasingly favoring hack and slash over turn based. Real time is a decent compromise in most circumstances. Although I can look past it in most cases, turn based RPGs will always feel very mechanical and unnatural.

I also find that games like Diablo favor skill a lot more than turn based games. In a turn based RPG for example, if your character is too low of a level when you hit a boss, you're usually just screwed. In a game like Diablo, you can use abilities and the environment in creative ways to give yourself the edge you need to win. Of course, some would view that as abusing the AI...

I like both. I tend to like turn-based more because for some reason the story in those games is more compelling to me, although I admit that the battle systems are usually awful. But hack-n-slash can be bad as well. If all you're doing is clicking an enemy until its dead most of the time, I call that a failure of a battle system.

Interesting you said that, I am actually right on board with you. IMO both play styles seem to have equally opposing strengths and weaknesses. Ideally, I would like to see/design a game that puts these two halves together, like yin and yang. An RPG which has the story and emotional depth found in games like Planescape, but with the pacing and action of Diablo games.

Seldom, if ever do I see such harmony in these types of games. This could be contributed to a number of factors like different audiences, play styles, etc. Still, the concept seems to hold water.

Neither. I find both to be poor extremes. I don't like turn-based games because they don't involve my reflexes and I'd rather play chess. I don't like games like Diablo because there's very little thinking involved. Kill 100 skeletons, drink a health potion, repeat.

Do better. Find the ideal compromise between the two and you'll be well on your way to a great game.