Not really since people have shown graphs of the 3 biggest video game Kickstarters (not counting Ouya) and Project Eternity is the fastest out of all of them even beating out Double Fine's speed so it looks to be very likely that they will beat Double Fine's in the end and that almost got 3.5 million. Also I don't think the graph counted the Paypal numbers which will add at least 50k so far and can continue to grow after Kickstarter ends.M4xw0lf said:
In one of the QA they did a while ago some guy said he was quite disappointed in Obsidian going for a real time approach rather then turn-based since he feels turn-based gives more strategic and tactical options vs a real-time game.80Maxwell08 said:
Tim Cain's reply was to pretty much to say that kind of thinking is a load of BS ( granted he put it more gently ) and that real-time gameplay can offer just as many strategic and tactical options as a turn-based game.
It was glorious to hear the father of Fallout gameplay say that to a fanboy who feels turn-based is inherently superior to real-time.
CostinMoroianu said:
Now I am not bemoaning that they implement RTwP, because in theory there's nothing stopping them from implementing similar sets of options. The problem is that is has never been done before as successfully as in *the best* TB RPGs (Dark Sun, Realms of Arkania series, Knights of the Chalice come to my mind - Infinity Engine games do not even come close in terms of allowed tactical options). Obsidian has hell of a lot of work to prove that they are capable of achieving that.
Which is a serious problem, because if there's an element where all of Obsidian-made games till now were lacking is engaging gameplay/combat.
Starcraft fans would like a word with you about tactical options as would Dark Souls fans, just to give two examples. As for RT games involving less strategy and more exploits, I seriously find it amusing. I have played plenty of TBS games ( King's Bounty the Legend and Armored Princess, Heroes Series, XCOM and so on ) and it's in those games that I rely a hell lot more on exploiting rather then actually strategy as in RTS games.
Also TBS require less skill then RT games, that's a fact unless you want to argue micro is not a skill.
In truth right now playing XCOM on Impossible has gotten somewhat dull after about a dozen missions in the campaign because what I mostly do is go in blue area by blue area for each squad member and as soon I as encounter the enemy I pull back, set up an entrenched position and smash the fuckers with weapons.
Also TBS require less skill then RT games, that's a fact unless you want to argue micro is not a skill.
In truth right now playing XCOM on Impossible has gotten somewhat dull after about a dozen missions in the campaign because what I mostly do is go in blue area by blue area for each squad member and as soon I as encounter the enemy I pull back, set up an entrenched position and smash the fuckers with weapons.
Half of the "tactics" stems from micromanagements abuse (stuff that couldn't take place in real battles).CostinMoroianu said:
And this has nothing to do with the point I was making. Can you have some kind of tactics in Dark Souls despite rather limited tactical options? Sure you can! But that doesn't mean limited tactics would do well in say party-based games. Let's not compare apples to oranges and two radically different types of gameplay.
So you played bad TB games (save for Heroes - they are simplistic but good). Bad for you. No mattter. My argument was built around the number of tactical options (as in buttons for selecting types of attacks, stances, attack/defense modes and so on) - which is the fact that in most RT games you won't see anything along those lines. RT are usually very simplifed, to the point where they may excel at strategic level but suck at tactical (micro) level.
Micromanagement in RT is not a strategic/tactical skill. It's just a gameplay skill which is useless outside of the scope of the given game. TB games typically do require more strategic and tactical skills connected with thinking as they allow many, many more micro options (e.g. modes of attack). It is also easier to transplant those skills from game to game. That does not mean either types of games cannot be fun or in inverse, may fail to achieve their goals.
Have I mentioned that the new XCOM is not the best example of a TB game? And from your description it seems to me the problem is not TB combat but bad encounter design - these are two separate combat elements (though they admittedly impact each other). By the same token I could say thay RTwP sucks because the encounter design in Dragon Age 2 is just gigantic piece of turd.
And come on! You've got to admit that historically RTwP RPGs have not allowed for a wide selection of options, and even if they do most of them are useless gameplaywise (NWN2 comes to my mind). Plus it is easier to abuse (running around table being chased by a mook, while the rest of the party pincushions him with bows).
Having said that let me repeat myself again: I don't say that it is impossible to have any tactics in RTwP - I merely stated that Obsidian has yet to prove that they can achieve that.
Rts require more skill, less strategy, turn based games doesn't require skill at all, like chess doesn't require skill but strategy, does that mean that tennis is superior to chess or chess is superior to tennis? Both genres has great games, heroes of might and magic or command and conquer. Also why do you even consider rtwp as rts, it's like playing more fluid turn based game, you always have pause to think about your next move.
IndeedSirnaq said:
And not exactly correct. Up till now the level of tactical complexity in RTwP games is rather low. Think of BG2 - what other options your warriors had than simple *attack*. Now take Temple of Elemental Evil (a flawed D&D TB game) and look at all modes of attack available to warriors. Unfortuantely, gameplay design in RTwP is usually such that it rules out more sophisticated combat manoeuvres due to the quicker pace of battles - even if there are more complex options for warriors/rogues/others (like in NWN2) you end up never using them.
This is compunded by usually poorer encounter design and AI which probably stems from - once more - quicker pace of combat. While TB RPGs have usually hand-places enemies who can and will use various micro tactical options to get the upper hand (good AI), RT games do not usually feature that. Notice how in RTwP game upon changing difficulty settings neither encounter design changes nor AI starts playing smart but computer uses various cheap "tricks" e.g. hp and stat bloat for enemies, you AoE spells inflicting damage to you, but enemy AoE effects not damaging opponents, artificial penalties such as lower chance to hit or lower chance for a critical, and so on. This applies to practically every RTwP game (from Infinity Engine through NWN series, Drakensang to Dragon Age series), and would be unthinkable in a good TB game.
As far as A.I. is concerned there's one exception: if you install SCS2 mod for BG2 then you unleash upon yourself the true power of the A.I., without any cheap tricks whatsoever (ok, almost any). That's why I think some tactical RTwP games are possible, but they have never been done.
Edit: One other factor that has always been inferior in RTwP games: character placement and movement. Whereas TB games allow the player to place characters with minuite details (e.g. behind covers, walls in overwatch/counterspell mode) with various mode associated with movement (3-feet step, charge, move combined with attack - to give simplest examples), which can often mean the difference between life and death, RTwP games do not care.
Micromanagment is tactical skill. Macromanagment is strategic skill. At least that's how those terms are defined when talking of a game like Starcraft, you may not agree with the definition but that's how it is.
In regards to the notion that RTS games require less skill then TB, I strongly disagree here. If you are comparing SP Warcraft 3 and SC vs TB games then sure, but compare MULTIPLAYER Warcraft 3 or Starcraft vs TB games because that's where it's really at.
In MP SC or WC3 micro and macro both matter a great deal, in fact the best players in those games are required to have both in equal measure if they are to win. Looking at someone playing Starcraft in a tournament you may see the insane APM, what you don't see is that the player is required to not just properly control his units in an army engaged in battle but also deal with his economy his base and so on. Build orders, building positioning, worker positioning and so on have a huge impact on the game.
Having played in WC3 tournaments myself it's not easy to manage your base I can tell you that for a fact.
If you want a good single player example check Sins of a Solar Empire. Strategy skill is crucial in that game.
In regards to RTwP I have never seen a great party based RPG with it, nor I have I see a good party-based RPG from those that I've played.
In regards to the notion that RTS games require less skill then TB, I strongly disagree here. If you are comparing SP Warcraft 3 and SC vs TB games then sure, but compare MULTIPLAYER Warcraft 3 or Starcraft vs TB games because that's where it's really at.
In MP SC or WC3 micro and macro both matter a great deal, in fact the best players in those games are required to have both in equal measure if they are to win. Looking at someone playing Starcraft in a tournament you may see the insane APM, what you don't see is that the player is required to not just properly control his units in an army engaged in battle but also deal with his economy his base and so on. Build orders, building positioning, worker positioning and so on have a huge impact on the game.
Having played in WC3 tournaments myself it's not easy to manage your base I can tell you that for a fact.
If you want a good single player example check Sins of a Solar Empire. Strategy skill is crucial in that game.
In regards to RTwP I have never seen a great party based RPG with it, nor I have I see a good party-based RPG from those that I've played.
Then you know what to do. Play these. If you don't like them there is something wrong with you. :safetywink:
PST, BG1, BG2.
PST, BG1, BG2.
Then there's something wrong with me. I think what it comes down to is I'd like those games if I forced myself into them. I don't doubt they're great, just an acquired taste for me. I need things to be happening at a faster pace to stay engaged.Pangaea said:
I was looking over the Project Eternity rewards pictures to see what's changed lately. What is this PDF "Cooking with Tim" and when did it appear? 
Also, why do some of the reward tiers have a green monster face next to the price?
Edit: Oh, I found the update that mentioned it. Nevermind about the cooking PDF I'm still curious about the little green monster faces though.
Also, why do some of the reward tiers have a green monster face next to the price? Edit: Oh, I found the update that mentioned it. Nevermind about the cooking PDF
I'm still curious about the little green monster faces though.Wow. It has shot up something wicked now. 3.2 million
Looks like the old-style RPG is very slow. Not 250,000 yet. Hope it picks up pace when Eternity ends, but maybe the market is simply too saturated for this right now. It's not like normal users like you and me have millions stashed away. At some point kickstarters in the same category will run into problems. Looks like this one has.
Looks like the old-style RPG is very slow. Not 250,000 yet. Hope it picks up pace when Eternity ends, but maybe the market is simply too saturated for this right now. It's not like normal users like you and me have millions stashed away. At some point kickstarters in the same category will run into problems. Looks like this one has.