GameBanshee Forums

I can see that games (specially those coming from the major companies) are leaning more and more towards 3D development, and that's cool with me. However, and I feel this is an important questions, why aren't 3D turn-based games developed? And I mean real turn-based games, so RTwP like in Baldur's Gate, no matter how akin you do consider it to turn-based, doesn't count. I mean, I can see it's harder to implement, but... is it really so much hard to implement distance instead of hexes? If hexes can't be implemented, which is dubious, seeing as Legend of Grimrock made everything squares with no problem (it doesn't count either, it's real time. Fun, but real-time)
So, what's the problem? Why can't we have pretty graphics and slow combat? What's the dealio? I'm genuinely curious if there's a real, programming difficulty, or it's just a problem of marketability

As much as some old-school gamers might like to see a tactical turn-based RPG, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's a matter of marketability, although I don't see "grimdark", "innovation", "romances", "DLC", and a number of other marketing words necessarily being an improvement.

Today's games are all about Hollywood-ized presentation of a game to a player. So visuals usually come first. Gameplay, fun, and replayability are usually towards the bottom of the list. Quality control is more often than not dead last.

Are you talking about just RPGs or gaming in general? If gaming in general then there are certainly 3D turn based games out there. Disciples 3 comes to mind, as does the Elven Legacy games, Combat Mission games, and Civilizations.

I think in general though, turn based is viewed as an outdated model in gaming (mind you I don't agree that it is), and that's why most games today tend to use other systems. The main complaint I hear is that turn based games are slow.

Turn Based does work well with the strategy game genre, but even there, there are not that many games that are made turn based. And Civilization is the only one that I can think of of right now that gained any kind of mass appeal.

Most RPGs today seem to have settled into two camps. Action RPGs and RTwP. Really the only Turn Based RPGs that I can think of that are recent came from indie developers.

Ares2382 wrote:Are you talking about just RPGs or gaming in general? If gaming in general then there are certainly 3D turn based games out there. Disciples 3 comes to mind, as does the Elven Legacy games, Combat Mission games, and Civilizations.

I was talking about cRPG's specifically, because while playing legend of Grimrock, this question came to mind. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll freely admit a big part of why I find turn-based combat so enjoyable is because of Fallout and Arcanum, two games which, to me, had marvellous combat systems, but my ensorcellation with them might come from the rest of the elements from those games coloring my combat experience.
On another note, I think I'd have enjoyed Fallout 3 a bit more, had it been turn-based. And New Vegas would have been damn near perfect.
So, maybe I'm wearing my rose-tinted glasses, it's possible, but, really, I don't think a relatively small 3D turn-based RPG game would be that hard to market to a mass audience? If strategy can do it, why can't RPG's? But, of course, nowadays, publishers have the last word. And it's hard to convince the guys in suits that some enjoyment can be derived from having time to think

Maybe all it takes is convincing a long-time lurker and game developer to seriously consider doing it...

I'd love to take AD&D 2nd ed rules and create a small campaign. Think Baldur's Gate, but with a top-down 3d perspective, instead of 2d.

I've got a good batch of actors I could use for the project, and they'd be happy to do it.

I agree wholeheartedly on your point, as well. I feel that the best implementation, and immersion, of a role-playing game is one that uses turn-based combat instead of real-time. It wouldn't be that hard to program at all! I think it would just be a matter of picking the right language based on what platforms you intend for the product to run on.

I know that in the heart of all traditional RPG gamers is the yearning for the most absolute translation of 2nd Edition AD&D to PC. It's only fitting that the result have turn-based combat.

People are listening, Myrr. Don't worry.

It always strikes me as funny how every so often there are games that come out which try to create an RPG/Strategy hybrid but ignore games like Baldur's Gate, Fallout, or Arcanum when gameplay wise they were very much strategy games with the story and customization of RPGs. I think part of the problem with many new RPGs is that their goal is to be an interactive movie.

sunnystormy wrote:

Maybe all it takes is convincing a long-time lurker and game developer to seriously consider doing it...

I'd love to take AD&D 2nd ed rules and create a small campaign. Think Baldur's Gate, but with a top-down 3d perspective, instead of 2d.

I've got a good batch of actors I could use for the project, and they'd be happy to do it.

I agree wholeheartedly on your point, as well. I feel that the best implementation, and immersion, of a role-playing game is one that uses turn-based combat instead of real-time. It wouldn't be that hard to program at all! I think it would just be a matter of picking the right language based on what platforms you intend for the product to run on.

I know that in the heart of all traditional RPG gamers is the yearning for the most absolute translation of 2nd Edition AD&D to PC. It's only fitting that the result have turn-based combat.

People are listening, Myrr. Don't worry.

I doubt that you will ever see a 2nd Edition AD&D game for the simple reason that I don't think WotSC would ever liscense any game that's not based on the newer adition of the D&D rules.

Maybe a game based on a d20 system, but that system is closer to 3rd edition of D&D.

But I do enjoy a good RPG with turn based combat, like Arcanum for example. So any 3D RPG with turn based combat would be welcome to me, regardless of which rulebook it's based on.

I honestly have no problem with RTwP type of system either, as long as it doesn't step in to the clickfest category.

To me in RPGs combat must really have 3 things.
1) When I level up, I want to feel more powerful. This is why I hate games that level the world with you. because you never really feel like you leveled up. You just end up fighting tougher enemies, and you never really feel like you accomplished anything.

2) Battles can be fought in different ways even with the same class. This is why I preffer games that have lots of abilities and spells rather then just a handful of abilities. And that's why I preffer spellcasters to melee fighters.

3) Battles require strategy to win. This is why I hate clickfest type of games like Diablo, Titan Quest and Torchlight. I enjoy finding different ways to defeating tough opponents and not just being able to spam the same combo over and over until their health bar is down.

Just think about BG2 for example, there are so many memorable fights. Kangaxx, Twisted Rune, Irenicus, Lord Firkraag, the dragon in the Shadow Temple, all the Bhaalspawns in TOB. Heck the gamebanshee subsite for BG2 even has a seperate section just for strategies for tough fights. And there is usually a few different strats for each one.

How many really memorable fights can you name in Dragon Age? Or Skyrim?

EDIT: Sorry, I think I may have gone a bit off topic on that.

You know, that's funny; You really think I'd bother asking for WotC's permission? What good have they done for DnD after 2nd edition? They've basically taken a solid paper-pencil system and tried to transform it into a video-game (without it ACTUALLY being a video-game). I'm talking about restoring an aesthetic that's obviously been cast aside for the sake of profit. The only reason 3rd/4th ed exists is for the sake of a new brand identity and distancing themselves from TSR. If WotC can normalize a new standard, who can stop them?

I'd use the rules anyway, or adapt them cleverly, without drawing too much suspicion... >_>

I'd gladly make a game with THAC0 and Half-Elven Cleric/Rangers any day! If there need to be space-hamsters for pets, I'll throw that in too!

Screw Wizards... seriously. More people need to nut-up and take action. The only reason I offered to make such a game is because there's obviously a demographic that wishes more paper-pencil experiences have an honest and accurate translation to PC. We can't ALWAYS have a group of people to throw-dice with, so hitting up your computer is the next best option. : P

There is always Age of Decadence which has a nice demo out already though the combat (while optional depending on how you play) is a bit brutal for a person who never really played turn based RPGs. There is also Dead State, which looks amazing (also helps that Brian Mitsoda is one of the devs).

@: Ares: while I agree in general (except point 1: I don't mind level scaling as long as A: it's not bandits with daedric armor and B: weaker enemies appear in mobs so while you might have fought 3 goblins in the past, now you fight 20), I wouldn't pick Dragon Age as a game failing your conditions.
Yes, it had level scaling, but it stopped at a certain point (ex: darkspawn would never be higher level than x, lieutenants more than level y etc), while different strategies for a class was limited mainly to the mage and rogue (and the mage was more versatile by far), the same could be said about most DnD games of the past. As for memorable fights: The dragon fights, a certain elven mage (heck mages in general), the impossible one with a certain underling, the first troll fight, the whole repelling the invaders part etc

sunnystormy wrote:You know, that's funny; You really think I'd bother asking for WotC's permission? What good have they done for DnD after 2nd edition? They've basically taken a solid paper-pencil system and tried to transform it into a video-game (without it ACTUALLY being a video-game). I'm talking about restoring an aesthetic that's obviously been cast aside for the sake of profit. The only reason 3rd/4th ed exists is for the sake of a new brand identity and distancing themselves from TSR. If WotC can normalize a new standard, who can stop them?

I'd use the rules anyway, or adapt them cleverly, without drawing too much suspicion... >_>

I'd gladly make a game with THAC0 and Half-Elven Cleric/Rangers any day! If there need to be space-hamsters for pets, I'll throw that in too!

Screw Wizards... seriously. More people need to nut-up and take action. The only reason I offered to make such a game is because there's obviously a demographic that wishes more paper-pencil experiences have an honest and accurate translation to PC. We can't ALWAYS have a group of people to throw-dice with, so hitting up your computer is the next best option. : P

Well any publisher that wants to release a D&D game kind of has to ask WotSC permission, since they hold the license.

On a more personal level. I much preffer 3 edition to 2nd edition. As much as I liked BG2 and PST, I think gameplay wise, Icewind Dale 2 was a lot more fun.

I know they hold the rights... that really wasn't my point.

My point is that (if you read all of the text in AD&D 2nd ed), there's more emphasis on role-playing than min/maxing your stats.

For instance, Elves can only level up a Wizard to a certain level, and they cannot surpass that. This also applies to the other non-human races as well. A clever DM could create an event where the character feels drawn to pursue a different discipline, or perhaps they get invited to teach at the Arcane University?

It would be great to make a game that expands upon the "limitations" of your character, rather than focusing on becoming some kind of killing machine. I don't think it was Gygax's intention for DnD to become a system that focused more on your character becoming a monotonous asocial killjoy.

Take these stats for instance:

STR: 10
DEX: 14
CON: 12
INT: 15
WIS: 9
CHA: 10

I guarantee a 3rd/4th edition player would throw this character right out the window. In 2nd ed, however, you don't have the luxury to reroll, or increase your stats through leveling.

I could play this character as a bumbling wizard; or maybe a former scholar, whom, after making a poor decision, ended up down on his luck and has to steal to make a living. Just because a score is LOW doesn't mean you should have less opportunity to role-play, if anything, it should make room for MORE.

That's something I'd love to explore: make a game where (no matter your stats) your dialogue/gameplay fits regardless.

-Somebody with a high intelligence may use bigger words.
-Somebody with a low intelligence may use poor grammar.
-Somebody with a high wisdom may be very perceptive, and understand what people mean, even if they're not being clear.
-Somebody with a low wisdom may be more loose-tongued; prone to jokes and general apathy/carelessness.
-Somebody with a high charisma may be flirtatious, or flirted with. Also, possibly asked to do tasks without needing to convince someone.
-Somebody with a low charisma may shy away from conversation, or have scars that frighten people.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg, by the way. There's always room for more.

I feel the last three stats are the most useful "social" stats in the game. A low/high CON could also indicate to someone how healthy you look to another person. "Wow, you've got quite the spring in your step today." or "My, oh my... your skin's so pale, and you're nothing but bone! ...here, please eat up, you poor thing."

In any case, I highly doubt people of the 3rd/4th edition generation think about DnD this way. Gygax explicitly talks about this problem in the 2nd edition rules; it's almost as if Wizards didn't pay any attention at all. The d20 variant of DnD exists for the pursuit of power, not on role-playing your character.

When I used to live in Chicago I had the privilege of trying out 4th edition, and the gameplay seemed to just be mainly about hack-and-slash. Examples of the combat-centric mentality are: Healing surges, 1/day abilities, "heroic actions", it puts emphasis on where DnD shouldn't be.

I want to make a game about role-playing. Combat should just be an accessory to the story. At the end of the day, if you were really playing these characters, I'm sure you'd be scared of fighting!! Slowly getting used to that type of paranoia that comes from knowing that things are out to hurt you... Violence in such a world would be as equally scary as it is in the real world, if not more so. Immersion is the key!

So, yeah... that's the kind of game I'd like to make. I certainly hope people would buy it.

sunnystormy wrote:That's something I'd love to explore: make a game where (no matter your stats) your dialogue/gameplay fits regardless.

-Somebody with a high intelligence may use bigger words.
-Somebody with a low intelligence may use poor grammar.
-Somebody with a high wisdom may be very perceptive, and understand what people mean, even if they're not being clear.
-Somebody with a low wisdom may be more loose-tongued; prone to jokes and general apathy/carelessness.
-Somebody with a high charisma may be flirtatious, or flirted with. Also, possibly asked to do tasks without needing to convince someone.
-Somebody with a low charisma may shy away from conversation, or have scars that frighten people.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg, by the way. There's always room for more.

I feel the last three stats are the most useful "social" stats in the game. A low/high CON could also indicate to someone how healthy you look to another person. "Wow, you've got quite the spring in your step today." or "My, oh my... your skin's so pale, and you're nothing but bone! ...here, please eat up, you poor thing."

In any case, I highly doubt people of the 3rd/4th edition generation think about DnD this way. Gygax explicitly talks about this problem in the 2nd edition rules; it's almost as if Wizards didn't pay any attention at all. The d20 variant of DnD exists for the pursuit of power, not on role-playing your character.

When I used to live in Chicago I had the privilege of trying out 4th edition, and the gameplay seemed to just be mainly about hack-and-slash. Examples of the combat-centric mentality are: Healing surges, 1/day abilities, "heroic actions", it puts emphasis on where DnD shouldn't be.

I want to make a game about role-playing. Combat should just be an accessory to the story. At the end of the day, if you were really playing these characters, I'm sure you'd be scared of fighting!! Slowly getting used to that type of paranoia that comes from knowing that things are out to hurt you... Violence in such a world would be as equally scary as it is in the real world, if not more so. Immersion is the key!

So, yeah... that's the kind of game I'd like to make. I certainly hope people would buy it.

If this is what you're offering (a game not about combat, but about role-playing, akin to Arcanum, Fallout or Ps:T), you've got my full attention. And my support, should it come to it.

In point of fact, what you're describing is exactly what I misss from the Black Isle and Troika era of games. Not even Obsidian has managed to create a game where combat is something to be avoided, and CAN be avoided at some stages. I'd love to see that. So, color me a happy camper.

Myrr and sunny, if you haven't already, look into Age of Decadence. It's a game (well, demo for the moment) where unless you have pored most of your stats into combat skills, you definitely want to avoid combat (and you can), heck three classes are pretty much helpless when it comes to combat. And stats matter, there is quite a difference between what a street smart pick pocketing thief can do and a merchant.

Thanks for the tip, Murph, I'll look into it.

@sunnystormy the answers are Fallout, Fallout 2.

i was thinking to create own turn base game with starcraft2/warcraft3 map-editor. it have nice top down view and editor allows to do this.
its just lot of work to do...
2 examples:

Corruption Showcase #1 - Sorceress, Items, Abilities and a Boss - YouTube

Lost Planet RPG (Starcraft 2 Demo) - YouTube