CDPR also, to my recollection, said they ain't aiming to please everyone. To me that - as a specific statement - reads as not going "too" (or at all?) mainstream. That obviously does not mean turnabased combat (or good combat, for that matter), but it does let a wiff of hope for this title in that regard (TB or not) seeing how everyone and their mother is an actionjunkie these days (considering pretty much every game out there).
This means that they have a certain vision of the game and they will stick to it. Whether that's good or bad depends on the vision. Also, note that the PR stuff can be quite vague and we won't really know what the game is supposed to play like until we see a gameplay video or at the very least learn much more info about the gameplay.
I'm good with real time combat since it gives us players more control over characters
I know.
I'm just doing some (hopeful) speculating because I see no reason to mention singling out "minorities" in a press statement like that.
Turn Based 3 4.29%
Real Time 67 95.71%
Shocker. ;-p
Not to say I dislike turn-based; I really dig the new XCOM title.
But, I don't want a turn-based CP2077 game.
Real Time 67 95.71%
Shocker. ;-p
Not to say I dislike turn-based; I really dig the new XCOM title.
But, I don't want a turn-based CP2077 game.
Real time, the only way to fly.
I remember way back when KOTOR was the big new thing, that weird turn-based combat really broke my immersion. Probably why I've never been able to get into Final Fantasy either, despite all my friends telling me I'm missing out (the newer titles excluded, of course, nobody seems to like those).
I'm fine with my fate being decided by die rolls for tabletop gaming because that's really the best method for the format, but if I'm in an elaborate simulated reality, my success or failure should depend on my skill, not a random number generator.
I remember way back when KOTOR was the big new thing, that weird turn-based combat really broke my immersion. Probably why I've never been able to get into Final Fantasy either, despite all my friends telling me I'm missing out (the newer titles excluded, of course, nobody seems to like those).
I'm fine with my fate being decided by die rolls for tabletop gaming because that's really the best method for the format, but if I'm in an elaborate simulated reality, my success or failure should depend on my skill, not a random number generator.
It could, of course, be argued that turn-based games require more skill than real-time games, where your success or failure can come down to a lucky shot that has nothing to do with skill whatsoever. In a turn-based game like Fire Emblem, for example, you have to weigh a percentage chance of hitting another character with their percentage chance of hitting you with their counter-attack, while considering your character's health (if they die, they stay dead for the rest of the game), positioning on the map, and proximity to enemies/other characters who affect their stats. That's an oversimplification, of course. Succeeding with all of that requires careful planning and skill (after all, if it were random, no one would have finished the hour-long maps without saving), while real-time games often come down to "wait until the other guy stops attacking, then mash buttons until they're dead." That's not even mentioning the immersion that comes as a byproduct of all of that planning.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward real-time combat. Not because I don't love turn-based, but because it would probably be CDPR's first turn-based game and I'd hate for the inevitable awkwardness of the transition to somehow bring down the game. It does bother me the kinds of generalizations people are capable of making about turn-based combat, though. It ruins immersion! It's for children! It's random! It gives you cancer! It ignites hostilities in the middle east! It killed Kennedy!
Okay, maybe not that bad, but still.
Well, in this case, my primary concern is that, like I said before, a turn-based system would break my immersion. And this is the kind of game I want to be immersed in.
It's not going to be turn based. They said aiming would be player skill based, which means twitch combat. End of story.
How can you judge immersion solely from purely hypothetical gameplay? There are incredibly immersive turn-based games, just as there are real-time games that fail at immersion (and vice versa). "I don't like turn-based games" is an adequate reason for wanting real-time combat. "Turn-based games don't allow for immersion" is a stupid, ignorant reason.
You're seriously misinterpreting me. It's nothing more than a personal preference. I find turn-based combat awkward, I don't claim to speak for everyone. Also, I don't hate turn-based combat games. Just because combat in KOTOR was clunky and funny-looking onscreen doesn't mean I didn't love it to death otherwise. My point is, when I'm playing any VRPG, especially this one, I want to feel like it's me there, and the way I fight isn't turn-based.
I think from a technical standpoint, it was. It just had characters taking actions at the same time to make it look more realistic. There was an option in the menu to look at the results of all the electronic die rolls that happened during combat, IIRC. There was also the fact that you couldn't move and attack at the same time, and picking special attacks from a list. If it really wasn't turn-based, it sure felt like it to me.
Here is an interesting thing, the pnp game is turn based.....with the ref/gm describing the scene, while the players make choices and take action every turn.
Now as much as i would like run and gun battles with no pauses, it is not for everyone and combat would be more like a shooter where you may miss no matter how good your characters skills are. Turn based you have time to think and make reasonable perhaps not correct choices...... personally if it could be done a choice of one or the other would be of course the best, but i known that is very improbable.
Now as much as i would like run and gun battles with no pauses, it is not for everyone and combat would be more like a shooter where you may miss no matter how good your characters skills are. Turn based you have time to think and make reasonable perhaps not correct choices...... personally if it could be done a choice of one or the other would be of course the best, but i known that is very improbable.
I think it's pretty certain that the game will be real-time, but if potential players want to express their concerns on what it will mean for them, they're welcome to do so. CDPR have, after all, requested feedback.
There were "rounds" happening behind the screen (based on various factors), yes, but everything happened in real time (with the ability to pause at will to issue new orders - as you were not in direct control of the character/s). Tha'ts the point. I'm a bit unsure how can one get a turnbased feeling from a game where you never take any turns. The method used in KOTOR (and also the old Infinity Engine games) is round based realtime with pause.
Gotta love the "I and my million friends will never buy if X" ultimatums.
...coupled with that always amusing "I don't like this, this should not be discussed!"
I agree, they are getting old fast. Some people pick their favourite feature, proclaim that the game will suxx without it and expect to be treated seriously by the devs. Combined with unrealistic expectations, this is the biggest plague of this forum IMO.
I'm surprised that there is no "Hybrid" option in the poll. I always had the impression that VATS was well-received by the players and since it was optional, you could stick to the classical real-time if you wanted.