Thanks for that. Unfortunately I have never played KOTOR, but I have heard that it was a brilliant game.

I guess I'll have to wait and see.

I am Sorry Pavman, I just don't know if the combat will be turn table, or more like Mass effect. or exactly what it will be, I was not intentionally ignoring your post, I just don't know and I was hoping one of the others who have followed this game so closely might answer your question. I am guessing it will be more like Mass effect or possibly Jade empire. but that is just a guess, so before Trethlon comes in and accuses me of trolling. once again I do not know, I am just guessing

---

DarthTrethon:

but it's not entirely real time either because once you give the commands you can only watch until the attack is finished.

Which has nothing to do with whether it's turn-based or real-time.
DAO is completely real-time, with a pause button.

And it's going to be the best game in a long time.

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

00din:

DarthTrethon:

but it's not entirely real time either because once you give the commands you can only watch until the attack is finished.

Which has nothing to do with whether it's turn-based or real-time.
DAO is completely real-time, with a pause button.

And it's going to be the best game in a long time.

I'm just trying to accurately describe the way it will work. Real time as far as I and most gamers are concerned involves full control all the time so whether you swing a sword or fire a weapon you are always in complete control. That isn't exactly the case. Initiating an attack starts a 3 to 5 second sequence, sometimes longer in which you can only watch or switch to another party member to control him/her although if you did your job right setting up the party and combat scripts you shouldn't have to worry about manually controlling your companions. Then the pause feature allows you to give commands and decide what attacks to use so it's a strategical feature that further compromises the "real time" qualification of this game.

Is it real time? Technically yes but not completely. It's a hybrid between turn based combat and real time combat.

Here's a video of KotOR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5X85kRkTo a game from BioWare(creators of DAO).

Here's a video of DAO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd2Vtme7n8E which is essentially a slightly better version of the same combat mechanism.

No matter how you twist it that doesn't really qualify to be called "real time".

---

DarthTrethon:

00din:

DarthTrethon:

but it's not entirely real time either because once you give the commands you can only watch until the attack is finished.

Which has nothing to do with whether it's turn-based or real-time.
DAO is completely real-time, with a pause button.

And it's going to be the best game in a long time.

I'm just trying to accurately describe the way it will work. Real time as far as I and most gamers are concerned involves full control all the time so whether you swing a sword or fire a weapon you are always in complete control. That isn't exactly the case. Initiating an attack starts a 3 to 5 second sequence, sometimes longer in which you can only watch or switch to another party member to control him/her although if you did your job right setting up the party and combat scripts you shouldn't have to worry about manually controlling your companions. Then the pause feature allows you to give commands and decide what attacks to use so it's a strategical feature that further compromises the "real time" qualification of this game.

Is it real time? Technically yes but not completely. It's a hybrid between turn based combat and real time combat.

Here's a video of KotOR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5X85kRkTo a game from BioWare(creators of DAO).

Here's a video of DAO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd2Vtme7n8E which is essentially a slightly better version of the same combat mechanism.

No matter how you twist it that doesn't really qualify to be called "real time".

I am completely confused now.

I guess I'll have to wait for it to come out. if it's real time, then I'll probably get it. i'm not a great fan of turn-based, even though they are really nice to watch. I prefer to do the killing myself.

I was speaking to one of my friends in Finalnd, and he was saying that it wwas up to the player whether or not it was turn-based or real time. Apparently, one can set the game up to be completely turn-based, completely real-time, or something in the middle.

If true, that'll be great as it would satisfy fans of both genres.

If you know your JRPG battle systems it's basically an 'active time' battle system.

You can issue commands in real time or in a paused mode, these commands are then carried out when it's your characters 'turn' (one command per turn). So it flows like a real time battles since there is no pausing to take input each turn like a turn based battle, if you haven't issued a command in time then your character misses their turn.

So you can play it as if it was a real time game, but there's also the freedom & depth to pause and issue/queue up commands for members of your party.

The Bag:

If you know your JRPG battle systems it's basically an 'active time' battle system. You can issue commands in real time or in a paused mode, these commands are then carried out when it's your characters 'turn' (one command per turn). So it flows like a real time battles since there is no pausing to take input each turn like a turn based battle, if you haven't issued a command in time then your character misses their turn. So you can play it as if it was a real time game, but there's also the freedom & depth to pause and issue/queue up commands for members of your party.

There are no turns. A character can begin a new command as soon as the previous one is finished, unlike in D&D-based games such as NWN where the character has to wait for a new turn to begin. NWN is active time. DAO is real-time.
The combat system is not twitch-based, like Oblivion, where you control every slash of the sword (which would be undesirable since you can control up to four characters at a time), but that doesn't make it any less real-time.

DAO Theme
Soundtrack Trailer

---

[Serdan dot EU][Emotiv]

I don't really worry so much about the combat system, if the game topic is of interest to me, I can adapt, whether turn based or action based. really I can deal with either one. I really enjoyed both Knights of the old republic games and they were turn based. and I enjoyed Mass Effect and it was more action based. in the end it's about the story, and character interaction, if the game is an RPG, what would be bad is an rpg with great action, only to have the role play elements suck. I expect DAO to be a   rpg because that is Bioware's thing. the only thing I hold against them is making KOTOR a damned mmo. I lament not having a new one to play on my console.

---

00din:

The Bag:

If you know your JRPG battle systems it's basically an 'active time' battle system. You can issue commands in real time or in a paused mode, these commands are then carried out when it's your characters 'turn' (one command per turn). So it flows like a real time battles since there is no pausing to take input each turn like a turn based battle, if you haven't issued a command in time then your character misses their turn. So you can play it as if it was a real time game, but there's also the freedom & depth to pause and issue/queue up commands for members of your party.

There are no turns. A character can begin a new command as soon as the previous one is finished, unlike in D&D-based games such as NWN where the character has to wait for a new turn to begin. NWN is active time. DAO is real-time.
The combat system is not twitch-based, like Oblivion, where you control every slash of the sword (which would be undesirable since you can control up to four characters at a time), but that doesn't make it any less real-time.

DAO Theme
Soundtrack Trailer

There are no turns for you to worry about but most of the enemies that matter will likely have all their commands issued on time so if you issue yours on time as well it will be an exact replica of turn based combat. Of you play KotOR you can have your next attack command issued before you finish the one going on but your PC won't perform the next attack until your enemy has performed his after yours. The game operates on a turn based structure.

The best way to explain it is turn based combat in real time. Even if you never make use of the pause function that doesn't change.

---

Turn based combat in an adventure game is so incredibly lame. KOTOR ruined the game for me before I could even taste the setting by throwing me in a horrible mockup of D&D combat right from the start.

RAVEK:

Turn based combat in an adventure game is so incredibly lame. KOTOR ruined the game for me before I could even taste the setting by throwing me in a horrible mockup of D&D combat right from the start.

Your opinion. I found the Knights of the Old Republic system even too shallow. The command cue was too short to get your strategy complex. Timing actions between your party members was not very . It only worked because your party was soo small. At least the battle system was worlds ahead of Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Damn shooters with their RPG/adventure elements!

I prefer an automatic pause after every turn. They should handle it like in Baldurs Gate where you could turn this on/off and customise a lot of the gameflow how you liked it.

An group/party oriented RPG needs an strategic battle system and that means turn based moves are nearly a must have!

---

Everyone should boycott Ubisoft and their new Online DRM for PC games. This has gone too far in the reduction of the rights of users and I am sick of it! It is not made to fight piracy, but to control the customer.

I absolutely despise spreadsheet RPGs. Depth does not come out of dice rolls and statistics tables. Any strategic system that's not horribly convoluted could be real-time or nearly so. Chrono Trigger is an excellent example of depth without tedium.

RAVEK:

I absolutely despise spreadsheet RPGs. Depth does not come out of dice rolls and statistics tables. Any strategic system that's not horribly convoluted could be real-time or nearly so. Chrono Trigger is an excellent example of depth without tedium.

Chrono Trigger on the SNES? Was it not similar in fights to Final Fantasy. I thought it was turn-based and your hits were calculated by chance. I don't see a big difference between a dice roll and the calculation of a hit by chance. 

Or do you simply mean that you don't have to wait for a turn to make your own move which would practically mean real time. I think the initiative throws, counter attacks or saving throws were thought to get similar results in a "real" turn based system like AD&D.

I don't really care that much about turn based or not, as long as you have the time to think about your strategy or your next move. The problem in an party RPG is that you need time to control your group and make use of their individual special abilities. That means you need an command cue and a pause option at least. If you have that you can make it completely turn based because it seems to be fairer for me in the end for the battle outcome. At least the realisation seems easier to me from the development point of view.

Back on topic of Dragon Age: I read that there will be downloadable content for console and PC directly with the release. What a bummer again, although I hope it is only unnecessary gimmick. This money maker mentality pisses me off!  I wonder who would buy this for the PC version because the game comes with an huge editor that should make modding very easy. Who needs DLC then?

---

Everyone should boycott Ubisoft and their new Online DRM for PC games. This has gone too far in the reduction of the rights of users and I am sick of it! It is not made to fight piracy, but to control the customer.

quaseman:

RAVEK:

Turn based combat in an adventure game is so incredibly lame. KOTOR ruined the game for me before I could even taste the setting by throwing me in a horrible mockup of D&D combat right from the start.

Your opinion. I found the Knights of the Old Republic system even too shallow. The command cue was too short to get your strategy complex. Timing actions between your party members was not very . It only worked because your party was soo small. At least the battle system was worlds ahead of Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Damn shooters with their RPG/adventure elements!

I prefer an automatic pause after every turn. They should handle it like in Baldurs Gate where you could turn this on/off and customise a lot of the gameflow how you liked it.

An group/party oriented RPG needs an strategic battle system and that means turn based moves are nearly a must have!

I agree Quas if it's turn table,  I prefer the Baldur's gate type system. As for Kotor, it was the stories and even the dialogue interaction, hell it felt more like a star wars movie, than two of the actual films. lol and for the last time. damn them for making it an mmo, and stealing those things I most cherished, the storyline, and dialogue with the npc's and the missions were just fun as hell to play.  Damn them for fubaring it up.

---

Nah, my gripes are not with things happening by calculation internally, but with harassing the user with pointless information like 'this weapon does 3d6 + 2' damage, and characters consisting of long tables of stats that have a specific influence on other numerical stats. I think this is a poor and non-atmospheric way to add complexity.

Chrono Trigger's battle system was technically much like Final Fantasy, but things played out very differently because of no horrible 'job systems'. Characters in Chrono Trigger have pretty basic attributes, and are only customizable through different equipment. The strategy in combat played out through different things:
- Enemies are often susceptible to only specific types of attacks;
- Characters can perform a large variety of attacks, all of which are useful throughout the game;
- Characters can do combination attacks with each other;
- Some enemies may counterattack;
- Enemies often consist of different parts. Choosing your targets well is important;
- Enemies often do combination attacks as well. Again choosing your targets is important;
- Attacks often hit all enemies in a specific area: A line, a circle, etc;
- You have up to 7 characters to make a party of 3 out of.

quaseman:

Your opinion. I found the Knights of the Old Republic system even too shallow. The command cue was too short to get your strategy complex. Timing actions between your party members was not very . It only worked because your party was soo small. At least the battle system was worlds ahead of Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Damn shooters with their RPG/adventure elements!

I prefer an automatic pause after every turn. They should handle it like in Baldurs Gate where you could turn this on/off and customise a lot of the gameflow how you liked it.

An group/party oriented RPG needs an strategic battle system and that means turn based moves are nearly a must have!

Does it bollocks. A Group/Party RPG needs a story and Group/Party dynamic with scope for Role-Playing. Hence the name Role-Playing Game. The only reason everyone gets hung-up on combat is that it's easier to do than storytelling and narrative choice, so RPGs on computers disproportionally concentrate on it. Almost all PC/Console RPGs are really just second-rate combat games of one flavour or another with some RPG elements bolted on. A series of combat encounters strung together with exposition and some basic branching dialogue. Oh, and the obligatory weapons shop. Obviously, this stems from the technology limitations of the early games, but it's something that Computer RPGs have dogmatically stuck to ever since. Look at actual role-playing games and the number of combat encounters is usually quite low (it takes quite a while to resolve by dice roll, for one thing) - it's all about the characters, the interactions, the ingenuity and the story. It's getting better now though - there are a few computer games out there where the Role-Playing is beginning to take centre stage, and you can pretty much decide what your character does, where they do it, and how they do it at any given time. The world is flexible enough to give you freedom of choice in exploration and action, and they've lessened the prominence of the on-rails story that studios such as Bioware do.

Mind you, the dialogue pretty much sucks in the some of the games I'm thinking of, the story isn't what it could be, and they're more or less solo character affairs, but I value open scope for playing my own character and doing my own thing. Actual role-playing rather than the role-following almost all computer RPGs do. I see it broadly under the heading of 'Steps in the right direction'.


But, as I've said before Quaseman, if you're going to judge the quality of the combat elements in games such as Fallout 3 by the standards of fully-fledged shooters, you've got to judge the quality of Turn-based combat RPGs such as Baldur's Gate by the standards of fully-fledged Turn-Based strategy games. Baldurs Gate combat vs, say, Master of Orion II or Civilization IV? It's absolutely shite. But concentrating on the combat is rather missing the point in Role-Playing, I would have thought...

Myself? I don't see why combat should be seen as a requirement in an RPG at all. I really don't need to make things dead to feel I've progressed in a game.

---

matneee:

  Does it bollocks. A Group/Party RPG needs a story and Group/Party dynamic with scope for Role-Playing. Hence the name Role-Playing Game. The only reason everyone gets hung-up on combat is that it's easier to do than storytelling and narrative choice, so RPGs on computers disproportionally concentrate on it. Almost all PC/Console RPGs are really just second-rate combat games of one flavour or another with some RPG elements bolted on. A series of combat encounters strung together with exposition and some basic branching dialogue. Oh, and the obligatory weapons shop. Obviously, this stems from the technology limitations of the early games, but it's something that Computer RPGs have dogmatically stuck to ever since. Look at actual role-playing games and the number of combat encounters is usually quite low (it takes quite a while to resolve by dice roll, for one thing) - it's all about the characters, the interactions, the ingenuity and the story. It's getting better now though - there are a few computer games out there where the Role-Playing is beginning to take centre stage, and you can pretty much decide what your character does, where they do it, and how they do it at any given time. The world is flexible enough to give you freedom of choice in exploration and action, and they've lessened the prominence of the on-rails story that studios such as Bioware do. Mind you, the dialogue pretty much sucks in the some of the games I'm thinking of, the story isn't what it could be, and they're more or less solo character affairs, but I value open scope for playing my own character and doing my own thing. Actual role-playing rather than the role-following almost all computer RPGs do. I see it broadly under the heading of 'Steps in the right direction'. But, as I've said before Quaseman, if you're going to judge the quality of the combat elements in games such as Fallout 3 by the standards of fully-fledged shooters, you've got to judge the quality of Turn-based combat RPGs such as Baldur's Gate by the standards of fully-fledged Turn-Based strategy games. Baldurs Gate combat vs, say, Master of Orion II or Civilization IV? It's absolutely shite. But concentrating on the combat is rather missing the point in Role-Playing, I would have thought... Myself? I don't see why combat should be seen as a requirement in an RPG at all. I really don't need to make things dead to feel I've progressed in a game.

Nah, then you may count me out as RPG player, but better call me a table top fan. I am not so much for playing a role, hence I like the party system where I can spread my abilities on a few character rather then forming just one. What I search for are tactical battles on or over the level of chess. Something like Warhammer if you want, "diced", turn based with strict rule set and massive stats that rely on each other. If it was for me, there could only be massive battles with such a system, bound in a nice fantasy or science fiction story.

On Raveks post, the stats seem very important to me concerning the matching of a powerfull party. Again I think it is something that gives you more control, a better overview, over things ... in the end I am just a Control Freak! The stats may of course not matter much if you look on it from a strict RPG point of view.

... and because Matneee mentioned it, I would like to see a stand-alone version of the Master of Orion 2 combat system ... this is the best that was ever done! Epic battles!

---

Everyone should boycott Ubisoft and their new Online DRM for PC games. This has gone too far in the reduction of the rights of users and I am sick of it! It is not made to fight piracy, but to control the customer.

Something like the difference between Football Management game players and those who actually want to control the players kicking the ball?

---

The only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.

More something like the difference between the actual role player and the game's referee on the pen&paper version I think. Although that the computer should be the "real" game's referee and storyteller on a computer RPG.

---

Everyone should boycott Ubisoft and their new Online DRM for PC games. This has gone too far in the reduction of the rights of users and I am sick of it! It is not made to fight piracy, but to control the customer.

Unlike Matneee I don't really care about the strictly roleplaying part of RPGs. It should be the defining term, but in practice RPG is often used like a synonym for 'action adventure', and that's what I'm looking for. Although the gameplay-relevant choices are a large part of what interests me.

Anyway, I like games that are strategically complex even though the rules are simple. Complexity by making the rules really complex feels fake and like poor design to me. I think lots of games could be more streamlined without being less interesting, and if that's so then they also should be, in my opinion.

New AWESOME trailer just released.

Dragon Age Origins: Sacred Ashes Trailer

Additionally for those who care, at the end there's a screenshot of the Blood Dragon Armor DAO LE bonus item as it will look in Mass Effect 2. This armor will also be available in DAO for those who purchase the LE but I am unsure if it will look the same or not.

---

RAVEK:

Unlike Matneee I don't really care about the strictly roleplaying part of RPGs. It should be the defining term, but in practice RPG is often used like a synonym for 'action adventure', and that's what I'm looking for. Although the gameplay-relevant choices are a large part of what interests me.

TBH, I don't care that much, as long as the game is fun And fun, when it gets down to it, is the most important part of any game, right?

Still, I'd love to see a computer RPG that's less combat oriented and more, say, investigation/exploration led. This isn't to say that I think combat should be dropped - I'd just like the freedom to not wander through the game world leaving a trail of mutilated corpses if that's how I feel like playing, and still have interesting things to do. Something with a path that involves a little more thought than "Who Should I Stab Next?", "Aim Fireball at Giant fruitbat" and the occasional "I Choose the Nasty conversation line" in between the never-ending carnage.

I suppose something like Oblivion gives you these sort of options to some extent. Anyone's feelings about the combat mechanics aside, it gives you the choice to play as a typical RPG murderous lunatic with a sword, but there's also the option to play the Thieves Guild stuff where you hardly have to make anyone dead at all. There's a long way to go in terms of working compelling characters into the game, or making you feel your choices have much effect on the world, but I do really like the freedom it gives me to do my own thing. I've still not really started the whole "Saving the World" story - you know, arguably the whole point of the game - despite having clocked up something daft like 150 hours in it.

---

matneee:

RAVEK:

Unlike Matneee I don't really care about the strictly roleplaying part of RPGs. It should be the defining term, but in practice RPG is often used like a synonym for 'action adventure', and that's what I'm looking for. Although the gameplay-relevant choices are a large part of what interests me.

TBH, I don't care that much, as long as the game is fun And fun, when it gets down to it, is the most important part of any game, right? Still, I'd love to see a computer RPG that's less combat oriented and more, say, investigation/exploration led. This isn't to say that I think combat should be dropped - I'd just like the freedom to not wander through the game world leaving a trail of mutilated corpses if that's how I feel like playing, and still have interesting things to do. Something with a path that involves a little more thought than "Who Should I Stab Next?", "Aim Fireball at Giant fruitbat" and the occasional "I Choose the Nasty conversation line" in between the never-ending carnage. I suppose something like Oblivion gives you these sort of options to some extent. Anyone's feelings about the combat mechanics aside, it gives you the choice to play as a typical RPG murderous lunatic with a sword, but there's also the option to play the Thieves Guild stuff where you hardly have to make anyone dead at all. There's a long way to go in terms of working compelling characters into the game, or making you feel your choices have much effect on the world, but I do really like the freedom it gives me to do my own thing. I've still not really started the whole "Saving the World" story - you know, arguably the whole point of the game - despite having clocked up something daft like 150 hours in it.

I agree 100% with Matneee, it's about whether or not a game is fun, I try to adapt whatever the system may be. and a very analogy by Del comparing it to coaching a sports game vs playing it as one of the players. I have two games like that. NFL head coach and Madden, I enjoy both games... but like matneee I look forward to playing a rpg, they are hard to come by, but when you find one that is , it's really a blast to play.

---

DarthTrethon:

New AWESOME trailer just released.

Dragon Age Origins: Sacred Ashes Trailer

Additionally for those who care, at the end there's a screenshot of the Blood Dragon Armor DAO LE bonus item as it will look in Mass Effect 2. This armor will also be available in DAO for those who purchase the LE but I am unsure if it will look the same or not.

Not to long now. I can't wait.   Thanks Darth, for posting this new information.

---

moonfever:

DarthTrethon:

New AWESOME trailer just released.

Dragon Age Origins: Sacred Ashes Trailer

Additionally for those who care, at the end there's a screenshot of the Blood Dragon Armor DAO LE bonus item as it will look in Mass Effect 2. This armor will also be available in DAO for those who purchase the LE but I am unsure if it will look the same or not.

Not to long now. I can't wait.   Thanks Darth, for posting this new information.

It sucks that EA had to go take the trailer down.

---