Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous - Its your Turn

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
@ChienAboyeur;, you misunderstand.
No.
I don't claim you're actually factually wrong in saying BG is turn based,
Who cares. Apart from the school to agree to disagree.

BG is turn based and therefore calls as such.
These remarks show how totalitarianism is present among american system proponents: people should wait their consent, their assessment to name a turn based product turn based.

People might find it right, they might find it wrong. It does not matter.

What I am claiming is that you aren't using the terms in the way that they are commonly perceived.
Already answered. It is common among socalled RPGers to reduce anything turn based to UgoIgo only.
It is part of their scheme. The turn based category is large, they do not acknowledge anything as turn based other UgoIgo. It is a trick.
It is nothing new. Human beings are a large category. Proponents of the american chose to acknowledge only some as human beings.

It is uncommon amongst people who are interested in gameplay as it does not allow to understand, analyse or whatever anything gameplay related.

And indeed, gamers are a rare find amongst socalled RPGers, or a product like TW3 would not have been a massive hit.
doesn't make your already hard to interpret posts any easier to understand for people who aren't regulars on this forum. Perhaps you should focus less on being right and more on being understood, especially since you actually have really interesting insights to share once in a while when you aren't sprouting hyperbole about institutionalized double standards and superior people.

Once again, there is nothing to interpret, no interesting insights.

BG is turn based and therefore elegible to be named turn based is not an interesting insight. It is a triviality.

It is a triviality that people who knows the game do not need to read to make.

Selling the idea that players somehow need to read that BG is turn based to be aware of it... It is no longer 1776.

Players are aware of it, they prefer to dismiss it. Their choice.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265

TomRon

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,215
Location
Sweden
I agree on the first part of your post Chien (the replies to my posts). Both PoE and PF did indeed get turn based modes, and I think that's a great thing for people who find the games more entertaining that way. And if it also leads to more sales for games that I appreciate (which would be the main reason to include different systems) then even better. There are actually examples of games that were originally turn based but then got RTwP slapped on as well when that was what was popular. Arcanum, Xcom Apocalypse, Fallout tactics. I can't think of any newer ones though.

You lost me in the second part of your post, I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Apart from the fact that simple minded people will claim their opinions are facts, which I agree with completely.

EDIT: This was a reply to Chiens post on the last page, not the one above this one, which sounds more like conspiracy theories than valid points.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,215
Location
Sweden

Pladio

Guardian of Nonsense
Staff Member
Moderator
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
8,392
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Looks like the latest stretch goal isn't very popular. Donations have stalled. Although I think this kind of things tends to happen on many kickstarters with a further uptick in the last week.

I'm expecting it to close at around 2m.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
8,392
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Who cares.
and I think that's a great thing for people who find the games more entertaining that way. And if it also leads to more sales for games that I appreciate (which would be the main reason to include different systems) then even better.
Or less sales. A classical statement from UgoIgo players, adding UgoIgo would induce more sales.
Keeping it RTwP would induce less sales.

Of course, does not work in the reverse way. Adding RTwP would not induce more sales, just like leaving it UgoIgo would not induce less sales.

The result of two centuries more of institutionalized double standards.

There are actually examples of games that were originally turn based but then got RTwP slapped on as well when that was what was popular. Arcanum, Xcom Apocalypse, Fallout tactics. I can't think of any newer ones though.
Without even telling how this was slapped on them...
You lost me in the second part of your post, I honestly don't know what point you're trying to make. Apart from the fact that simple minded people will claim their opinions are facts, which I agree with completely.
Better to treat that the same way as BG being turn based. It does not need to be spelled out.

There is no enlightening, insighftful comments. Only trivialities that most people know already.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265

TomRon

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,215
Location
Sweden
Getting snarky now? To reply "Who cares" when someone says they agree with you is perhaps not the enlightened way to discuss something. Simple minded people sometimes have a hard time grasping that languages change, and that the meaning of a word is entirely dependent on what meaning the general public will perceive. You can either adapt to the new meaning, or you can struggle to hold on to obsolete expressions even if it's futile at best.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,215
Location
Sweden

wolfgrimdark

Follower of Fenris Wolf
Original Sin Donor
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,507
Location
NH
I personally enjoy both RTWP and TB.

In re to these discussions on spell-casting, I have to admit that RTWP did alter the way I played PF:KM with magic-using characters. I tended rely on buff spells. I think it had more to do with laziness than anything else; it was just easier. I also found them to generally be more effective than AoE spells anyway.

I'm glad that PF:WotR will implement both systems. I'm guessing I will stick to RTWP for most battles and go to TB with the harder battles where I want to micro-manage more.

Aye good point. I pretty much never used any spell in PF:KM if it was an aoe that could affect allies as well. So it was exclusively buffs, single damage spells, or the rare AOE that was enemy only.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,507
Location
NH

Drithius

Magic & Loss
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,535
Location
Florida, USA
The case for Turn-based increases proportionally with the game's difficulty. If you can just turn on the rudimentary AI and auto attack your way to a win, then there is indeed little reason to use anything but RTwP. Spells such as Scirocco and Hungry Pit become mere footnotes, likely never even utilized once.

I hope this sequel introduces even more of a requirement for tactics - even more difficulty - beyond monsters with bloated stats and die rolls.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,535
Location
Florida, USA

rjshae

Periapt vs Paronomasia
RPGWatch Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,386
Location
Seattle
Turn-based systems are a way to address the scaling issue when humans are in control. As the number of units increase, it gets harder and harder for people to manage the battle without just constantly applying a combat pause. (In P:K I often had to just let the battle run itself, and just fiddle with the occasional unit.) Turn-based systems allow you to control units one at a time, so you can apply a lot more tactical detail to their actions, as well as coordinating attacks and making formations. They are great for games with a lot of units and tactical options. But they make for really slow combat, as is true in the PnP game as well.

RTwP is better for simpler combat with fewer dynamic options, less units to manage, and more frequent combat. Like a four-member party with a single mage.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,386
Location
Seattle

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265

The same answer was made twice. The first time comes with an extra mention: apart from the school to agree to disagree.

The lack of mention the second time did not make it disappear.

Of course the school to agree to disagree cares. This is how they work, thinking that aggregation of agreements or disagreements change things.

Depending on their whims, things are or are not.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
The case for Turn-based increases proportionally with the game's difficulty. If you can just turn on the rudimentary AI and auto attack your way to a win, then there is indeed little reason to use anything but RTwP. Spells such as Scirocco and Hungry Pit become mere footnotes, likely never even utilized once.

I hope this sequel introduces even more of a requirement for tactics - even more difficulty - beyond monsters with bloated stats and die rolls.


This comment shows a case of a self fulfulling prophecy, people bringing the conditions to fit their pre determined perceptions.

To test a RTwP product, it requires to be able to test in RTwP. Otherwise, distorsion is introduced.

The procedure was documented for PoE.

Players were unable to play RTwP which comes with various expressions like the incapacity at placing inputs in real time. They had to pause, place an input, unpause, repeat.
In the meantime, instead of acquiring the skills, they kept ranting about how good it would be if made UgoIgo (all publically)

As a prop to compensate their non assimilation, an AI was implemented in order to step up to fill in for faltering players.

As it was foretold and predicted, the process came at the cost of cheapening the value of an input. As they no longer came from a human being, it had to be easier for them to be interpretated by a low level AI.

It happened as it was foretold.

All of this engineered.

The conclusion of it is that RTwP is somehow less difficult.

Just enabling the rudimentary AI and hop the battle is won.

The big difference here: when done that way, the battle is played not even RTwP, but RTnoPause.

Removed the AI, same battle, and the same players are unable to achieve a similar result without turning it into a slideshow. They do not have the skillset in the first place.

They are so lacking they can not match the output of a rudimentary AI in a battle downgrading to match the capacity of a rudimentary AI.

Self fulfilling prophecy.

Indeed, there can not be any RTwP product without an audience for it.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Simple minded people sometimes have a hard time grasping that languages change, and that the meaning of a word is entirely dependent on what meaning the general public will perceive. You can either adapt to the new meaning, or you can struggle to hold on to obsolete expressions even if it's futile at best.

Language does not change in this case. The expression is nothing obsolete.

Third time: gamers can not afford conflating UgoIgo with anything turn based. It is a luxury that players who do not bother about gameplay can afford.
There is no new meaning here: UgoIgo is one type of turn based, not all.
Old american system trick: start with a large thing like humanity only to find out that humanity is supposed to be only white people.
UgoIgo is the only turn based, everything else turn based is not turn based.
Same trick, same purpose.

Once again, this is the doing of players who do not want to assimilate. Instead of acquiring the skillset required to play RTwP, they demand it to be made UgoIgo.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Top Bottom