Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Istbor" data-source="post: 7231751" data-attributes="member: 6801670">Both games are quite good.&nbsp; However, I do not play consoles much, especially if a game is also out on the far superior PC platform.&nbsp; I cannot say how well it feels on a console. On the subject of the poll however, I could see cases for turned-based or against it.I think a large part of the problem lies with expectations with RPG video games, and how D&amp;D is played.People expect to use skills, combat skills, in an RPG, whether that be real time, or turned-based.&nbsp; These are not always a thing in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Classes get some abilities or spells, but they are all limited on use, needing time to recharge.This works well for D&amp;D at least it sure seems that way, but for a video game this is more problematic.&nbsp; Putting limits on these abilities in the video game would then result in the eventual need to just basic attack after basic attack, until the player finally decided to rest.&nbsp;&nbsp; That makes for some odd pacing when thinking video games.&nbsp; Both for real time and turn-based. From a designer's point a view, 4e had maybe a smoother system for translating into video games.&nbsp; Encounter powers recharged after each fight, and you got enough of them to not just be stuck auto-attacking.&nbsp; it eased this odd pacing that could arise. While still having your big dailies or utility/movement abilities in reserve.&nbsp; Successful games that I have seen in RPGs all have a cooldowns or turn timers on abilities, big and small.&nbsp; That is just not what I think of when imagining playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; Battles can be more narrative or fast paced that can cut down on any monotony that one may feel.&nbsp; It is hard to capture. It would almost need to have some element of like... a Dynasty warriors or Elder scrolls in it.&nbsp; Sure, you are just hacking away, but it can feel a bit more visceral than what it really is, standing in place and swinging your sword.&nbsp; Just like how I feel when playing a good game of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, I can feel bored in a D&amp;D type table game if the combat or system is just not exciting (I'm looking at you pathfinder and 3.5). I hope that in all this rambling, I have made some sort of sense. As Iserith stated though, a D&amp;D game that felt and played like Darkest Dungeon would be something I would totally try out. Sounds great. Which would be a vote to a turn-based against what I have just previously talked about. So... I don't think turn-based or real time matters.&nbsp; It is if the games flow of combat, and pacing feel right.&nbsp; If it feels like combat in a good D&amp;D campaign.&nbsp; You are invested and striving for that good outcome, or in some cases to just make it out with your character alive. D&amp;D as a video game is hard to quantify I think.&nbsp; And I am too busy at work today to devote the amount of thought it would take to properly tackle this topic at the moment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Istbor, post: 7231751, member: 6801670"] Both games are quite good. However, I do not play consoles much, especially if a game is also out on the far superior PC platform. I cannot say how well it feels on a console. On the subject of the poll however, I could see cases for turned-based or against it. I think a large part of the problem lies with expectations with RPG video games, and how D&D is played. People expect to use skills, combat skills, in an RPG, whether that be real time, or turned-based. These are not always a thing in D&D. Classes get some abilities or spells, but they are all limited on use, needing time to recharge. This works well for D&D at least it sure seems that way, but for a video game this is more problematic. Putting limits on these abilities in the video game would then result in the eventual need to just basic attack after basic attack, until the player finally decided to rest. That makes for some odd pacing when thinking video games. Both for real time and turn-based. From a designer's point a view, 4e had maybe a smoother system for translating into video games. Encounter powers recharged after each fight, and you got enough of them to not just be stuck auto-attacking. it eased this odd pacing that could arise. While still having your big dailies or utility/movement abilities in reserve. Successful games that I have seen in RPGs all have a cooldowns or turn timers on abilities, big and small. That is just not what I think of when imagining playing D&D. Battles can be more narrative or fast paced that can cut down on any monotony that one may feel. It is hard to capture. It would almost need to have some element of like... a Dynasty warriors or Elder scrolls in it. Sure, you are just hacking away, but it can feel a bit more visceral than what it really is, standing in place and swinging your sword. Just like how I feel when playing a good game of D&D. Don't get me wrong, I can feel bored in a D&D type table game if the combat or system is just not exciting (I'm looking at you pathfinder and 3.5). I hope that in all this rambling, I have made some sort of sense. As Iserith stated though, a D&D game that felt and played like Darkest Dungeon would be something I would totally try out. Sounds great. Which would be a vote to a turn-based against what I have just previously talked about. So... I don't think turn-based or real time matters. It is if the games flow of combat, and pacing feel right. If it feels like combat in a good D&D campaign. You are invested and striving for that good outcome, or in some cases to just make it out with your character alive. D&D as a video game is hard to quantify I think. And I am too busy at work today to devote the amount of thought it would take to properly tackle this topic at the moment. [/QUOTE]

Verification