Anyone else out there like the old turn-based RPG's? Top-down tile style, like Ultima, or static 3D like Might and Magic or Wizardry. Turn-based systems were particularly for magic users. You could sit there and go through your 99 spells for the perfect spell to cast at any given moment.

Much prefer this type of system to action-based ones. I just don't like getting frantic with the keyboard and mouse and banging on my computer like its an arcade game. I prefer to sit back and think about my characters moves.

Okay -- I don't see any major game company as ever going back to that sort of system. But there are some optional things that game companies have been doing to appease us turn-based guys. Bethesda got creative with the Pip-Boy in Fallout.. but it seems the Skyrim community is all out against something like this according to an earlier thread.

But what about the classic "pause button" game mechanic where you can pause your combat and give your characters new direction before the next move? This worked in Dragon Age and Neverwinter Nights -- why not the Elder Scrolls? Pause it, give some direction to your guy like hovering your mouse over the enemy and telling the system to cast a freeze bolt at him. Unpause and the action occurs, with a random chance at failure. It is entirely optional -- you don't have to use it.. or even call it a "casual" mode if you like (a setting).

Any takers?

I have enjoyed that sort of turn based rpg game play in the past myself. I thoroughly enjoyed Final Fantasy Tactics and some of the other iterations of the game. To be perfectly honest I like the direction the Elder Scrolls is heading because I really feel like it is moving towards the pinnacle of what the first conception of an rpg was supposed to be. You are role playing somebody you would like to be, in a world where you could progress and make a name for yourself. You will become more powerful over time, and your success is insured through persistence and wit. In truth real life has the potential to be the best "rpg" there ever was, but for many of us it seems like that potential will never be achieved. But I am getting off topic...

I think that the kind of game you like, like Chess, has sort of reached critical mass and there is little more than can be done with it. And like Chess the turn based rpg hasn't evolved considerably since its conception. The evolution into the next tier of role playing I believe is this step towards immersion and realism that Todd Howard and the Bethesda team are aiming for.

I don't like it. In games like Dragon Age, you're basically more of an overlord of your character/party, giving commands and watching the action play out. In Elder Scrolls games, you are your character and you're in direct control of the action. "Pause and play" really changes the entire mood of combat, basing it more on strategy and management of tactics. Elder Scrolls combat has always been real-time action based, and is one of its main draws.

That said, I don't mind turn-based combat in games where it makes sense. But either be real-time or turned-based.. trying to be both will just produce poor results.

Mass Effect does this exact thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzQRa-o3mUs

Spells would have to be instant or much faster for that to work in TES though. Spell projectiles were pretty darn slow in Oblivion.

Not my cup of tea.

No i don't like this idea. I like the combat system the way it is.

I like. A lot.

The first turn based RPG I ever played was Quest 64 back on the Nintendo 64. That game was okay but I enjoyed running around more than the combat. Turn based is just not fun to me. Even in Dragon Age I never paused the combat to direct my party. I just set up "tactics" that I wanted them all to use and played like that. If there wasn't a tactic option I wouldn't have been able to play.

I can understand why other people enjoy it, it's just not for me. So, no. I wouldn't want Skyrim to implement something like that. :shrug:

Edit* I know what you are suggesting isn't turn based. Per say. It's more of a evolution of turn based.

I had no problems with that in DA:O, although I didn't use it that much. I set tactics for my party members and focused on my main character. That mechanic worked with that style of game. I don't really see the use when controlling one pc in a first person game in the ES style.

You pretty much described what VATS would be like in TES. And VATS is something everyone here loves to hate I would welcome it though, despite not fully agreeing with how it operates in FO3. Unfortunately they went from success rates to always succeed, and to make matters worse they came up with "minigames". In FO3 I spend most of my time outside VATS because the system handles failures automatically at least for ranged weapons. But in a system which is based on "always succeed", it just wouldn't work. That's my main reason for not wanting it. Getting it to work would require some changes in certain concepts.

Maybe they'll get action based combat to work, although they haven't succeeded so far. But no matter how I play it out in my head it changes from character oriented skills to player oriented skills (or rather, reactions). I know it's a personal opinion, but for me it separates me from my character when *my* skills are favored over *his/hers*.

Just for ref, Realms Of Arkania is my favorite CRPG of all time, despite being party based. Why I prefer this over anything else I've seen? Just read the manual and you'll get it. Let's just say it has *strong* relations to dice RPG, where TES is leaving it more and more for a true action game. Link:
http://eager.back2roots.org/DATA/B/BLADE.html

I have to agree with the general consensus of No. The whole fun of the combat system is having to actually have some degree of reaction time and hand-eye coordination. The Elder Scrolls aims for realism in a fantasy setting, and it's not quite realistic to just pause the universe and sit back and wait. Instead, it's you and your enemy right there in a struggle to the death, you don't have time to just sit there and think about everything, you have to get a plan quick and react on it.

If you want more time to think, paralyze enemies. That can be just as good.

It's not for The Elder Scrolls.

I love it in other RPGs though.

I hate it.
If it's in I won't buy the game.
I want real-time thanks

Pause should only be when you go into your inventory.

I enjoy it for some games, but not for TES games

I love such style games, but I don't want TES to be like that.

Not for TES. It's a perfectly valid gameplay mechanic and can be done well (just finished ToB, moving on to IWDII ).
The problems:
1) people prefer realtime (damn people D:)
2) TES has historically been real-time, first-person
3) Bethesda would [censored] it up. Seriously, they've been developing real-time, FPP games from the start, and I don't trust them to do anything else at all (and they don't really need to, either).
4) Even the IWD games had filler combat that plagues real-time-with-pause games, and those had the best encounter design out of any I've seen. Filler combat is tedious (think Dark Roads from Dragon Age).
5) VATS was kind of a pause button...

Honestly, I mostly just play old RPGs these days. Check out Darklands for RTWP combat (like what Dragon Age had), or any manner of old RPGs for turn-based (Phantasie may be worth looking into).

You mean like Blue Dragon? That's fun, but not TES.

BTW Blue Dragon = the best boss song ever. :tongue:

I guess I don't understand the negativity if it's an optional part of the game, like VATS was for Fallout. You could even leave it out of "normal" mode and put it in a "casual" mode and I wouldn't care. Would it be that much effort to build something like this?

Elder Scrolls is the only old-school RPG that is left, which is why I am hoping for something like this from them. They are successful because of the genre of the explorable open world RPG -- not action combat. You can get action combat anywhere.. even fantasy action combat. If there was another Might and Magic, Wizardry or Ultima series out, I wouldn't ask them to make a change like this.. but Elder Scroll is all we've got. (Dragon Age doesn't cut it because it's not open world).

Nah.

Don't get me wrong, I love me some good turn-based combat. And some good first-person action-focused combat. But I don't care for trying to mix the two...it just don't work for me. VATS wasn't "creative" IMO, it was an attempt to pretend they weren't turning Turn-Based Fallout into Fallout: The FPS. Meh. Pick one side of the fence and stay on it. :shrug:





Uh, what? :confused: I've never seen anything to imply TES was ever anything other than an alternative to "old-school" RPGs. The only series I've seen that never had a "pause and queue up attacks" mode. It's done fine without that all along, why does it suddenly need it now?

The whole point of TES is that it DOESN'T use an arbitrary pause/turn based system, never has and hopefully never will. The first person view with direct player control is what has and does set it apart from counterparts that are more D&D-ish.

Keep the combat system the way it is, don't start screwing around with the mechanics, it would ruin it. The combat system in OB was good, but not great. Improve on this field instead of introducing new ones.

No, you missed my point. When I said "old school" I mean open-world, epic RPG.. which has nothing to do with the combat mechanics. I don't believe it's success had to do with the combat. I played Arena when it came out -- and I liked the open world and exploration, not the real-time combat.

Again.. the people that are saying it isn't Elder Scrolls and shouldn't be in there don't need to use it -- stop being a damn zealot about something that isn't being forced on you. I said it should be optional.

Because in TES you don't have a party, and a lot of mechanics are reactive (block for instance). Much as I enjoyed a lot RPGs with turned based or hybrid combat I just can't see this working for TES.

By the way, it's not zealotry. I'm getting a bit tired of people wanting exotic changes in the game on grounds that it would be "optional". Some things are right for a game and some things are not. Just because some players would like to play TES as Batman does not mean they should add an optional Batman feature.

Too bad, when I see "old school RPG" I think of managing a party in a turn-based game. You know, like a very large percentage of all the old school RPGs out there.



And one look at my signature will tell you all about what "optional" means in TES- so start looking for a modder to add your "optional" feature.

+1