I think it's a horribly flawed logic to say "There were a few games like that back in the day, ergo: Backwards". There were real time games too (Arena, Daggerfall, Diablo, etc) and outside RPG's most games were real time (not to mention that RTWP is real time too). Should that logic be brought to the FPS aspect too? Wolfenstein 3D was one the most popular games of it's time in the early 90's and then came Doom not too much later (and even before that there were first person shooters like Operation Wolf on c64), so going first person real time is going backwards? Or that al lot - if not most - of games were 3rd person aciton games (platformers, sidecrollers, top down like GTA or Commando or Who Dares Wins or Dogs of War...) so 3rd peson realtime action is "backwards"? No. That only dismisses the form and function and the design intent.
Going "backwards" is deliberately choosing old tech that handicaps your design potential. Choosing a form of design (real time, turnbased, realtime with pause, first person, third person, what ever), is choosing just that. That's why the new XCOM games aren't "backwards", that's why HoMM or CIV series' aren't "backwards", why Wasteland 2 or D:OS or T:TON aren't "backwards". There is no "evolution" from turnbased to realtime. Either way is chosen by their own merits and due to what is wanted from the game, which ever way suits the intent best. TB offers far better tactical opportunities and clarity and more finetuned impact from little things for example, realtime offers far better adrenaline rush and reaction gaming for another. And so on.
If the chief intent is only to become another holiday season blockbuster, obviously the design is chosen accordingly. If the desires are somewhere else than needing to be that specific blockbuster, then that's the way it goes. And thank god there're still companies out there that have modest, yet profound desires. I do wish Witcher 3's success has not made CDPR cocky or greedy, but rather given inspiration to try out what they are capable of creatively. There have already been some troubling signs in the air regarding CP that I hope are just my imagination.
It was meant to be a nod towards the called shots, but in practice it works nothing like them (and there most certain isn't anything turnbased about it). It would've been closer and more acceptable as a mechanic if it had worked more like how combat worked in Wizardry 8 (all the trappings were there), but they decided not to give it that kind of treatment and left it as a gimmick.
Can't say that I'm interested in what modern players are interested in (just like they are not interested in what people like me are). Modern gamers in general like nigh anything that has a resemblance to what they liked yesterday. That's why every game released today is like the other game that was released yesterday. Everybody's playing it safe, only few are taking any risks, and thus all games are so very much alike (apart from the indies and the crowdfunders that deliberately cater to nostalgic appetites).
Divinity OS also did not try to cater to everyone like Fallout 4 or Witcher 3, nor did it have the budget of either (IIRC it was around 5 million dollars altogether -- 1 mil from KS and the rest from Larians own pockets, or some such). It had a specific audience in mind (that was guessed to be a metric ton smaller than what ended up happening). D:OS has around 900,000 owners in Steam (and that's just Steam, there's still GOG and physical - like consoles - owners on top of that). While it is much smaller, it is not such a "tiny" percent. And who cares about that anyway? The game was made the way it was wanted to and it paid back if not ten fold its costs, close to it.
By comparison to D:OS, WL 2 has around 500,000 and PoE around 600,000 Steam owners. (Steamspy figures)
That is all pretty well done from niche games made with shoelace budgets (compared to the "big boys" of the industry who put millions in marketing alone). Games made with less money don't need to sell as much as those intended to be blockbusters from the get go in order to be profitable and guaranteeing a solid base to continue making and improving such games.
Who knows? Making yet another open world action game like all other similiar games thus far is not that path either.
Not to say TB is the path (I know I've been throwing out suggestions otherwise quite a lot and admitted being in terms with the game not being TB if it won't, I'm not rigid in what I'm comfortable with even if I'm not an omnivore with these things and have vocal opinions), but it does seem to be one those less explored areas of design these days (and the past years).
(Another thing that puzzles me sometimes is the shortsightedness, that when this topic comes about immediately an example is dug up from somewhere 20 years ago - when 16MB of RAM was overkill for most games - as if that's the height of what can be done with the design, and then is said: "Oh so obsolete, baaw!" Not saying you do that, but it happens quite a lot with this subject. Just something that came to mind while writing this rant.
)
Last edited:
