Home » BIT COMPOSER GAMES » Jagged Alliance: Back in Action (by Coreplay) » Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #265380]
|
Fri, 22 October 2010 08:18  
|
|
 usrbid |
 |
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Below is a re-post of what I posted on the German forum, original is here: http://jaggedalliance.com/index.php?id=35&tx_mmforum_pi1[action]=list_post&tx_mmforum_pi1[tid]=101&tx_mmforum_pi1[page]=2&cHash=d7d80914c038891239a8ed612aa7eb45
Quote:We have discussed this in the Stable Modding Platform forum, the most up to date form to make turn based work is stop time (or whatever you guys call it here).
You "program" / select actions while the time is stopped (can also be done with the clock running) and then start the clock with the speed of the time passing being adjustable (but not to the point where the player can click individual seconds as game play is more fun when you have less control).
An option menu let's you select which types of events automatically stop time like for example soldier sees an enemy, soldier gets shot and so on.
The old fashioned turn based system is (in my opinion and many other's as well) prone to "cheating" in the sense that the player knows all his soldiers are likely to spend all their action points before it is the enemies turn again. This knowledge can be exploited to form an "unrealistic" team strategy.
A stop time system will also help make pistols more useful as a holstered pistol can be drawn and fired in less time than the enemy can ready and fire an assault rifle. Assuming your pistol shot hits the enemy, the enemy should have to "recover" from the shot (off balance) which in turn gives the player additional time to fire their pistol again.
Here is also a German post I did, but I am tired and don't feel like translating it into English, it took me for ever to get the German text together. Because the language is not English, I collapsed the text in a spoiler tag.
Toggle Spoilerkraj0t im Englischen forum hat ein paar sehr gute Ideen. Die Trennung von Ausdauer Punkten zwischen Bewegung und Aktion ist genial. Warum sollte alter Gus weniger schiessen koennen wenn nur seine Beweglichkeit durch sein Alter eingeschrenkt ist?
Aber zurueck zum Thema, Real Zeit mit Pause ist wahrscheinlich die richtige Entscheidung, nicht nur weil es ein "modernes" System ist, aber mehr weil die Spielerfahrung mehr Sinn macht. Jemand hat hier geposted dass Aktionspunkte Beispiel wo ein Soeldner eine Tuer oeffnet, einen Gegner sieht, und die Tuer wieder schliesst. Macht keinen Sinn wenn der Gengner mit dem Gewehr im Arm seit zehn Minuten im Zimmer auf mich gewartet hat.
In meiner Meinung das hat wirklich nichts mit realitaetsnahem Spiel zu tuen wie jemand hier geposted hat. Ich bin mir sehr bewusst dass es sich hier um ein *Spiel* handled. (Eine Spiel Mechanik beabsichtigt nicht Realitaet zu simulieren.) Deshalb wird es immer Abweichungen zur Realitaet geben. Aktionspunkte vereinfachen die Spielerfahrung leider zum Punkt wo die Resultate nich viel Sinn machen. (Vielleicht ist das warum ich so viele Leute sehe die fast verzweifelt Aktionspunkten fordern?)
Bitte errinnert Euch das sehr viele Spieler ein Spiel beenden koennen ohne, oder nut mit sehr wenigen, Verletzungen. Warum ist das? I glaube weil erfahrene Spieler wissen wie sie das Rundensystem ausnutzen koennen. Von meiner eigenen Erfahrung ein Kampf der laenger als notwendig dauert, frustriert mich. Die Meisten langen Kaempfe sehe ich nicht als eine Herausforderung, es "fuehlt" sich mehr als Arbeit an, nicht Freude.
Bitte entschuldigt meine Abweichung, aber ich moechte die Gelegenheit wahrnemen die Wichtigkeit der Artificial Intelligenz (AI) hervorheben. Das beste Runden oder Real Zeit System wird nutzlos sein wenn die AI die Intelligenz einer verwirrten Schnecke hat.
In dem Stabilen Modding Platform Forum haben wir die Bedeutung der AI im Detail diskutiert. Die meisten Spieler beschreiben die 1.13 AI also enthauptete Huehner rennen vor und zurueck ohne sichtlicher Absicht. Die Basis JA2 AI ist nur ein bisschen besser weil der Computer eine wenig mogelt, zum Beispiel elite Gegner koennen weiter sehen im Vergleich zum Spieler und so fort.
Leider ist eine gute AI schwer zu implementieren, das meint hohe Entwicklungskosten. Letztendlich wenn Ihr mich um meine Meinung fragen wuerded, dann rate ich Euch verschwended keine Zeit auf das Runden oder Real Zeit System. Nuechtern betrachtet eine schlechte AI wird weniger Kopien verkaufen. Spieler sehnen sich nach einer Herausforderung. Eine langweilige Spielerfahrung und jeder wird das Spiel deinstallieren.
--Dieter
[Updated on: Fri, 22 October 2010 09:26] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #265383]
|
Fri, 22 October 2010 11:48
|
|
| Faithless |
 |
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
Well, obviously turn-based should stay in my opinion.
1st person view is good, as it allows you to see what cover the enemy has.
There should still be a birds eye view on the battlefield, though. Without it, it would be too chaotic.
Sniper mode - I'm not sure, depends how it would be implemented, I wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.
Hard to tell if it would be better if you could aim yourself in sniper mode. It might take away alot of the strategy and RPG elements.
A merc with higher marksmanship simply shaking the gun less doesn't sound appealing to me, that's always the downside of the modern RPG shooters.
EDIT:
Come to think of it, pausable combat might be a good replacement for turn based combat, but it's very hard to get the feeling right with that.
It needs to "feel" like turn based, not having to rush for the pause button or something.
If that works well, you can get rid of that unnatural interrupt thing JA2 has (which is probably the best you can do in turn based).
There should be auto pause options for just about everything (enemy spotted, out of ammo, merc hit, vulcano eruption).
All in all, I feel turn-based is the safer bet, but realtime with pause has more potential in the end, although being alot harder to reach.
[Updated on: Fri, 22 October 2010 11:56] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #265386]
|
Fri, 22 October 2010 14:22
|
|
| usrbid |
|
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Yo Maalstroom, In my German language post I mentioned that probably turn based versus stop time might be less important than an acceptable AI. Headrock has actually extensive experience in AI programming and can explain how difficult this is. There are still university papers on AI programming submitted which tells me this technology is far from figured out.
But to be realistic, this is about money, the software company ideally wants to sell a lot of copies. There are some numbers I posted in early BitComposer discussions, not sure if these posts are still around or if they have been deleted as there may have been some sensitive content.
You can easily look up best selling games, something like WoW, Civ etc. You can't attract 40 million customers with just turn based, hence my let's look at this with an eye on reality. If they do turn based they get how many copies sold? 200,000? 400,000 if they are lucky.
To broaden the audience, and sell more copies, they need to throw something in everyone can enjoy. This typically means simpler game play, quicker rewards, shorter missions - well, everything we don't like, hihi... For example look at games like Diablo, WoW etc., why are they so successful? Because kids, older people, women, raid people alike can play the game.
So let's see what audience the software company is targeting. From the sample graphics it looks like they are looking at the CoD style plus strategy crowd, possibly with a heavy focus on online multi player support. (This would also soften the AI requirements as your opponents might be other players, hard to tell though from the mock ups.)
Hi WarmSteel, We discussed stop time in the SMP forum for several weeks, looks like you came to the same conclusions (which is pretty cool as this isn't trivial), and I agree to get it right is difficult. Helios mentioned a game (was it Fallout 2?) which allows both, but since you can switch mid battle, this can be exploited and it all becomes no good quickly.
Now Helios had a good point, stop time cannot be too accurate, if the player can safely advance time second by second then there will be no pressure element to perform well. I would work much better if start and stop again has less accuracy. Hard to explain, think of advancing strategic time in JA2, it is hard to just advance a single minute.
And you are right, "unnatural" was the word I was looking for. I wanted to get away from the realism argument, as I am the first to explain that this is a game and not a simulation. Game mechanics are supposed to not be realistic, think of a computer game based on a card game. However on top of game mechanics introducing an acceptable layer of abstraction, turn based (in my eyes) is just a big exploit.
To be honest the stunts you can pull with turn based are very unnatural. Think of DCA where your guys spend several hours of real time in a bathroom opening and closing the door. In addition it is possible that turn based is the cause of several other problems (I haven't really thought this through though) such as impossible to take advantage of fast draw pistols, multi turn machine gun discharge, and multi turn sniper shots, and many other actions we can't currently implemnt (check HR's posts).
[Updated on: Fri, 22 October 2010 14:51] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #265406]
|
Fri, 22 October 2010 19:19
|
|
| sorca_2 |
 |
Messages:202
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA |
|
|
Dieter (emphasis mine)You can easily look up best selling games, something like WoW, Civ etc. You can't attract 40 million customers with just turn based, hence my let's look at this with an eye on reality.
...err... Isn't Civ in fact turn-based? I haven't played the new one, but I know the first 4 sure were. Civilization, Heroes of Might and Magic, the strategic half of the Total War series, Final Fantasy Tactics, Valkyria Chronicles, Worms, Advance Wars,... these are a few of the best-selling turn-based games I could think of from the last few years. In fact, nearly all of those are multi-sequel series as well, so there must be a pretty decent base (and money to be made) out there after all. It's true that it's an "old-school" approach, but clearly it's still a viable one when it's done correctly.
DieterTo be honest the stunts you can pull with turn based are very unnatural. Think of DCA where your guys spend several hours of real time in a bathroom opening and closing the door. In addition it is possible that turn based is the cause of several other problems (I haven't really thought this through though) such as impossible to take advantage of fast draw pistols, multi turn machine gun discharge, and multi turn sniper shots, and many other actions we can't currently implemnt (check HR's posts).
I think all of these are issues that can be corrected in a redesigned game. Silent Storm for example has multi-turn sniper shots; it will let you aim with whatever AP you have at the end of your turn, then it just adds that amount of aiming onto your next turn. Multi-turn machine-gun discharge would just be a matter of lowering the AP cost of firing if you ended your turn firing a burst. I'm not saying we can fix that ourselves, but those would definitely be cool and plausible features for a turn-based JA2 Reloaded. I've already got ideas for the pistol thing in the Balancing Large Pistols thread.
As for DCA, I'm not sure how real-time would change the bathroom tactic. What would stop you from doing the same thing in real time? You camp in the bathroom until someone spots an enemy, then the game pauses and you issue orders. What's the advantage of "pause time" there? It's definitely an exploit, but it's a strategic one--the best fix would be with the AI. They should just machine gun, grenade, and mortar the hell out of your fully-destructible bathroom until none of you are left.
If it's a matter of being able to open doors without being interrupted--just make it interruptable in Reloaded. I'm pretty sure that kind of thing was interruptable in Silent Storm. Better to bandage the arm than cut if off, no?
DieterTo broaden the audience, and sell more copies, they need to throw something in everyone can enjoy. This typically means simpler game play, quicker rewards, shorter missions - well, everything we don't like, hihi... For example look at games like Diablo, WoW etc., why are they so successful? Because kids, older people, women, raid people alike can play the game.
I guess I'll cite my above turn-based examples again. Yes, it's definitely true that quick-reward type games can have broader appeal. However, I wonder what percentage of those games have lasting appeal? A game that truly has "depth" will have lasting appeal that can translate into longevity in a series--hence this board and the aforementioned multi-game series.
I understand that broader "from ages 8 to 80" appeal is tempting from a marketing perspective, but Jagged Alliance just isn't that kind of game. If BitComposer wanted to make that kind of game, they shouldn't have bought the JA franchise. JA is a strategy game, just like the games I mentioned above, so conceptually it won't and probably shouldn't appeal to mindless Call of Duty preteens. In summary, I think dumbing it down would be a huge mistake.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #265453]
|
Sat, 23 October 2010 11:29
|
|
| Fozzie |
 |
Messages:183
Registered:April 2010
Location: Germany |
|
|
Why is a turn-based combat system an exploit? The AI uses it too, after all.
Changing from turn-based to pauseable real-time would actually result in me not buying the game. I already hated how Bethesda raped Fallout into Oblivion (pun intended...). And such things as a 1st person view are just the kind of useless gizmo stuff I mostly just get angry about. Just because FPS games are popular doesn't mean every game needs that perspective. Remember playing Dungeon Keeper? Thank goodness we had the option to "zoom" into a creature, the game wouldn't have been fun at all, if not for being able to be wandering around as an Imp and digging out tunnels...
I don't get why it should be a selling point, either. The Battle Zone games blew economically just because they tried to merge strategy and action. Seriously, every attempt at crossing over these two game mechanics was more or less a fail - and rightly so (I don't count tactical shooters into that category, they are a horse of a completely different colour). You can't target a game at everyone. Truly great games are played by a wide variety of people not because they were designed to be "standard-size-doesn't-fit-anyone", but because they picked one central gameplay element (or a select few) and perfected it for the time. That way, even gamers who don't fit the "profile" will like it. I don't like FPSs at all, but I just loved Deus Ex, completed it at least three or four times. Not because of the RPG elements they threw in, but because it was just great in it's own right and I kept playing despite it being essentially 1st-person-action.
So what is it with the constant blubbering about making "faster paced action" on a TURN BASED STRATEGY GAME? That's just nuts. If I wanted fast paced action I would play a friggin' action game. But I don't. And I don't want to, either.
Report message to a moderator
|
Staff Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #266300]
|
Thu, 04 November 2010 23:28
|
|
| sorca_2 |
|
Messages:202
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA |
|
|
I read the post... pretty disheartening. Even our own poll here had 93% of people wanting to retain turn-based combat.
quasimodoI don't know why they bothered to ask for suggestions as by far the majority wanted no change to the TB combat style.
A couple of possibilities:
1) They didn't care about our opinion at all, but wanted to be able to say that "we were deeply involved with the JA community when making this game" in future marketing.
2) They didn't care about our opinion at all, but hoped that it would align with their preconceived idea to go to RTwP so they could say they care.
3) They initially wanted to go with the fans' idea, but something changed their minds sometime between when they asked and now.
It doesn't really matter which one... any way you slice it, there's really not much of a bigger "slap in the face" to the JA community than asking our opinion, seeing that it's lopsided one way, then deciding to go the other way regardless. Now they must think A) we're not serious when we say we're not interested in a RTwP game, or B) bitchslapping the JA community won't impact their success.
Their five points of "justification" of the new system are pretty good for a laugh. The fact of the matter is that you can't have the same level of strategic complexity in real-time as in turn-based. Honestly, it sounds like it's going to turn into Diablo--equip your characters, then clickclickclick until all enemies are dead. As one would expect, their forum isn't reacting very well.
I had to laugh at this:
bitcomposeryou can be sure that our aim is to develop a worthy remake of JA2. And I can tell you that we had a lot of discussions here especially on the combat sysetm as we know that it's the "secret cow" of the game.
I think they meant sacred cow. It's certainly no secret.
On the other hand, I feel like our work on the equipment-based sprites won't be wasted--1.13 will be around forever if it's the last turn-based version of JA.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #266321]
|
Fri, 05 November 2010 09:44
|
|
| usrbid |
|
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
The goal is to attract a broader audience.
We discussed this (turned based alternatives) over about half a dozen two hour voice conference sessions in the SMP panel, there are very attractive alternatives which could work! Some games got it right (Helios knows which ones), some didn't.
From the description it doesn't sound too horrible, it is basically stop time, which was predictable. Let's see how the gameplay actually feels, maybe they got lucky and found a happy middle?
What I am (deeply) concerned about is the absense of a fog of war. Actually to be precise, JA2 never had a fog of war as you can see the entire map, meaning you don't need to "uncover" smaller map section as you move along. What JA2 did (brilliantly) is to show enemies only if *anyone* on your side can see them.
Personally I don't like "uncovering" smaller map section as you move along, that just feels childish. However knowing where all enemies are on the map starting from the first second yoou enter the sector *completely* removes the X-Com feeling of the player (actually) being scared.
How many times did I spend all my action points in X-Com, UFO:AI, UFO Extraterrestials, or Jagged Alliance 2 only to get a visual on an enemy and not having enough action points to get to safety.
How many times did I actually play a realistic squad tactic where I need to cover my flanks because I had no way of knowing where the enemies are.
How much joy did I get from playing 1.13 on Insane and Iron Man using 8-9 soldiers and laughing manically when I was able to defend a flanking attack because I *planned* for it.
From the little information the bitComposer Team provided I can already (safely) predict that the gameplay *will* feel more like "work" than "anticipation".
When you see all enemies at the beginning and at all times throughout the combat, all that is left for the player to do is "clean up" the sector - which is boring and tidious. (Remember how much you liked to clean up your room when you were a kid, yeah, just like that.)
But - restricting enemies showing up on the map to the line of sight of your soldiers *can* be made a game option (probably relatively easily too) - which means that the "hardcore" guys like us would almost always have it turned on and all would be cool again.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #266349]
|
Fri, 05 November 2010 20:49
|
|
| Villa |
 |
Messages:17
Registered:November 2009 |
|
|
"Enemies positioned outside buildings are permanently visible, which enables the player to establish a strategy from the outset without having to constantly save and load."
It is of course up to bitComposer what they do with their games but this reasoning is, in my opinion, ludicrous. In strategy games, part of the fun is usually to think about what COULD happen and to make sure you are prepared for it. This sentence sounds as if they were playing JA2 by running around all the time until they found an enemy, and if he got the interrupt, they would reload.
DieterThe goal is to attract a broader audience.
Yes but by doing that they will probably have more competition. They are giving away their chance to enter a (virtually untapped) niche market. I don't understand this from a business perspective as well: When a company buys the JA license, one would think they are about to create a game that appeals to those who enjoyed JA. The whole idea of buying a license is marketing the game to those who remember the original games. Now if you remember JA, you either liked it or you did not. Those who liked it will be disappointed because of the different gameplay, and those who did not like JA (but might actually enjoy the new game!) will be put off by the name "JA". I really don't understand what they are thinking.
Report message to a moderator
|
Private
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #266364]
|
Fri, 05 November 2010 23:43
|
|
| usrbid |
|
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Hi Villa, Search this board for posts I made about copies sold and money made. This discussion is a few months old, so I am not sure if I will be able to reproduce / remember everything (so don't get upset if I contradict myself, I am just trying to remember).
One question we could try to answer is how much effort it takes to make a next gen JA game. Newcomers to the SMP panel consistently forgot about graphic artists, sound artists, payroll / human resources, technical leads etc. A company (in the US or Europe) has a really hard time making a computer game from scratch with 2-3 guys in less than 12 months.
I believe we estimated something like 10-20 people for 12-18 months, which is (very) roughly USD 2 million to 5 million. I believe my post was deleted as I can't find it, but this amount is considered private venture funding in the US and Europe (also called Angel money), meaning a person like you and I (with money though) can pull this off (not a big effort).
Depending on the size of the company this may or may not be a lot for them. I do not want to be mean saying the following, I do know a couple of software companies, but I haven't heard about bitComposer until their first JA press release, so it is very possible that 2-5 mil is a lot for them.
Now lets look at the size of the JA / JA2 / 1.13 / mod community, how many people do you think we are counting everyone? I know the Asia Pacific community is large even though we don't get many posts on this English spoken forum, also Germany / Europe still has a lot of active modders.
Lets throw a number out there, maybe 200,000 to 400,000 tops?
Now lets look how much common games go for, USD 40 maybe? A little more in some parts of Europe, a little less elsewhere?
A typically "response ratio" (this is how success for a marketing campaign is measured) is just 2 percent, meaning you send some crap to a hundred people, only two of them will buy your stuff.
What is the percentage of the JA fan community who will buy the game? I think it will be much more than 2 percent. How much? I have no idea, maybe 10 or 15 percent? It could go higher or lower.
Lets look at a best scenario, 25% of 400,000 people buy the game for USD 40, that's 4 million USD. But wait, you need to pay someone to make CDs, the carton, the pamphlet, distribution / shipping, some ads so that people know your game is done.
How much do you think you can keep from selling one game for USD 40? Usually about half, maybe 75% if you really squeeze it, meaning no TV ads, begging for free advertisement etc.
So best case scenario (and very unlikely) the poor bitComposer guys get to keep 3 million from the sales, minus the production cost of (again best case) 2 million is just 1 million USD for the company (to be spend on research and development for future projects).
There are a couple of things they can do, the most effective one is to broaden the audience, get to sell more copies.
Lets look at what other software companies did. What is the game with the most copies sold? There is a Wiki somewhere and I forgot what it actually was (and I am too lazy to look it up again), it was something like Civ or WoW with 40 to 60 million copies, just rough ballpark.
What do you need to do to increase your sale from 100,000 people to 40 million? Yeah, you guessed it, you need to build a product you can sell to: teenagers, kids, girls, middle aged adults, appeal to multiple genres (e.g. spice it up from turn based to action), attract players who don't want to plan / think much and so on. Pretty much all the characteristics the best sellers have.
A software company is not a charity, they need to make profit or shut down (and we have seen many shut down over the years). It is just fair for them to build something they can sell, no need to get upset or disappointed.
I still will buy their game (maybe they will make enough money to "fix" what they couldn't get right in their initial release). If their game is not as great as I wanted it to be it goes on the shelf with the other hundred games and I will continue with 1.13 (and hopefully 1.14).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jagged Alliance 2: Reloaded - Discussion: Turn-based combat system 2011[message #266370]
|
Sat, 06 November 2010 01:33
|
|
| KeldorKatarn |
 |
Messages:37
Registered:May 2006
Location: Germany |
|
|
Someone can post this over at the bitComposer Forum if they want to as a quote. I don't register on forums which force newsletters on me.
----------------------------
Realtime with Pause works in RPGs.. and even there Parties have to be limited to max 3 or 4 people or it gets totally out of hand and uncontrollable. In JA2 you have up to 18 Mercs on the map if I remember correctly. Addtional to that around 20 Enemies by standard. Everone of these figures can die from a few well targetted shots. Now add grenades, suppression fire and everything else to it and you know what you got? Right.. bullshit. No interrupts, no surprises. Dummed down gameplay for 11year olds.
I don't care shit if a stupid teenage of 13 has to run to his mommy because he's losing a merc all the time.
This "Avoiding Reloads" crap is hilarous. Sorry but I never reloading during combat. maybe the entire combat map but never during combat. That was the point... TO have a tactis that work without reloading. If you developers are too stupid to play JA2 withtout dying constantly because you rush and reload until you get the interrupt, then I'm sorry. But I don't want to be treated as if I was an equally sized moron.
I like fun and fast action tactics like Starcraft or something. I was also someone who said C&C 3 was putting me to sleep with its incredibly slow units and the resource collector unit that drove one crazy. But that's action. The big strategy part in those games is not the fighting but getting to the resources first and establishing a good defense (or hit and runs) until you're ready to attack.
Tactical combat is not possible with more than max 4, maybe 5 units. You cannot control that. Ever seen a Lieutenant controlling everyone of the 40 men under his command by himself? Or a regiment commander controlling all 1000?
If you want total control over every guy you need turn based. It doesn't work otherwise. A thousand games have proven that already.
This game is SOOO gonna drive against the wall.
And then saying fog of war is out... Well guess what... you just proven you're totally incompetent. Jagged Alliance 2 didn't have fog of war on the tactics map, stupid! It had line of sight... something we call realistic tactical element.
And now what... We have several levels in JA2 with large long halls on the map. Are you going to tell me I'm entering the map from the south and you consider it good gameplay that I actually see the guys on the other side of the building?? WTF!!!
Oh and hey... since it's posible to plan my strategy I guess the enemy doesn't have this x-ray view right? Otherwise the 13year old would have to cry again because "bad man shot me mommy".
Oh and hey... Night Attacks... HOW THE HELL DOES NIGHT FIGHT WORK WITHOUT LINE OF SIGHT???
What are forrest fights for now? Looking at the shadows of the trees in the fucking 3d engine??
Is there any marketing idiot out there who thinks that ANYONE out there still has an IQ above room temperature?
Again a franchise being drowned in a slurry barrel. Well done my friends.
Instead of including cool new worthwhile features like 3D view of the quest NPC interactions like in RPGs like Dragon Age for example, which would actually really improve atmosphere, or getting mouseover item comparison to already equipped items (also like Dragon Age e.g.)... nooo... you're gonna change a tiny little thing like the WHOLE FUCKING GAMEPLAY BASICS.
Great cinema... really. Great story.
Reloaded my a**
----------------------
Sorry for the bad language here folks but I'm sick and tired of watching this crappy industry ruinging one franchise after another.
Any mod feel free to censor any words that don't belong here. I'm just to pissed to do it myself at the moment. The words are REALLY meant this time!
[Updated on: Sat, 06 November 2010 01:36] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 18 15:27:26 GMT+3 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03631 seconds
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
:crazy: