Combat

[Chimera005ao]

the square box design was used, and has been used on dozens of turn based games.

Point? Evolution, innovation. Things don't always stay the same.

it was turn based for a reason

Quite possibly due to hardware limitations and computer games being relatively new, at first.
Later, probably to build upon what they already had or copy other games.
Sometimes its just what the developers choose to do.
Grids/hexes are useful for turn based games in many ways. Doesn't mean the two are bound together.
I've seen some very interesting grid based games that were real time, and even a few turn based ones that didn't work on a grid.

[Mychaelh]

Grimrock is desgined as a Dungeon Master-Clone NOT a Wizardry-Clone.
No turn based combat. No secret switch discovery massages because of skill checks.
End of discussion.

Wizardry established the command-driven battle system with a still image of the monster being fought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizardry

Dungeon Master was a realtime game in contrast to the traditional turn-based approach that was, in 1987, most common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Ma ... eo_game%29

But of course I would like to see AH to make a Wizardry 8 clone next.

[Jkiller]

What the hell is wrong with you guys? Insulting the guy and getting insanely mad over a fair question regarding turn-based combat

sorry, but what made the old square-box rpgs great was that they were turn-based. Likewise, this game needs at LEAST the option for turn based combat.

this format was DESIGNED for turn based combat.

So.
I go to the forums for a Starwars game, and say
"Sorry, but dragons are what make games great, and the least they could do is put an option to enable dragons. I just don't get it. Games with sword-type weapons were DESIGNED for dragon based combat. why oh why isn't it even an option?

sad. guess I'll return it and get my money back."
Would I come across as asking a fair question?
It was probably the wording.

Are you serious? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard, it's not the same at all. You could simply have the option to enable turn-based whether YOU like it or not, while ingame (Example press T and it goes to turn-based). Why would it bother you if a player was able to do that? You can still play real time and dont have to worry about it. I seriously don't get the concern, it's not like the game would change at all really, it would be in the hands of the player to choose what to do.

[spectre900]

Lets add top-down view RTS option to CoD too shall we? maybe a Final Fantasy type battle mode for Minecraft? Age of Empires II needs to have a turn based option as well!

[Mychaelh]

Are you serious? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard, it's not the same at all. You could simply have the option to enable turn-based whether YOU like it or not, while ingame (Example press T and it goes to turn-based). Why would it bother you if a player was able to do that? You can still play real time and dont have to worry about it. I seriously don't get the concern, it's not like the game would change at all really, it would be in the hands of the player to choose what to do.

Because for turn-based combat the whole stat system for chars, monsters and magic had to be changed to make it more 'deep'.
A Hybrid system would be more like Wizardry 8 and not Dungeon Master.

With Grimrock we want to play Dungeon Master not Wizardry.

[Sarumorpheus]

Your situation has actually partially inspired me to record boss battles.

Here's the first one, if you'd like to take a look. I hope it helps!

[Billick]

Are you serious? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard, it's not the same at all. You could simply have the option to enable turn-based whether YOU like it or not, while ingame (Example press T and it goes to turn-based). Why would it bother you if a player was able to do that? You can still play real time and dont have to worry about it. I seriously don't get the concern, it's not like the game would change at all really, it would be in the hands of the player to choose what to do.

You have to consider it from the devs point of view as well. If you add turn based combat, then you have to balance both systems, which sounds like a development nightmare to me. It's possibly doable, but you can't really blame them for not wanting to go down that rabbit hole.

(I wouldn't mind seeing Almost Human doing a Wizardry-style game in the future though )

[tseliger]

As someone already pointed out, Eye of the Beholder was real time too, albeit a little slower than LoG. But the typical sidestepping was also part of EoB.

That aside: I was able to beat the Viper Roots boss without moving around. By mistake I was running into the small opening (that one with the chest) and got cornered. Since there is only space for one enemy, I only had to fight one root at a time. Sure I had to use three health potions, but it was doable. I play a Ratling only (Knight, Barbarian, Rogue, Wizard) party, so it's far from "optimal build"(tm).

[Luj1]

I just don't get it. this format was DESIGNED for turn based combat.

Ahem, not really.There were both (real-time and turn-based) and both are ancient

sorry, but what made the old square-box rpgs great was that they were turn-based.

Then you should play them ... I still play Wizardry to get my turn-based fix...
Might and Magic 10 is this years' game and is fairly decent if you can get past the hideous character creation. The game is sadly abandoned by Ubisoft and lidden by bugs but has really tactical combat and could have been so much more, so you ought to try it by all means


EDIT: On a sidenote just adding turn-based format as an option wont work

[Merethif]

(...)sorry, but what made the old square-box rpgs great was that they were turn-based. (...)

Not sure I can agree with that statement. Most old RPGs I have been enjoying as a kid, like Dungeon Master, Eye of the Beholder, Lands of Lore, Ishar, Ravenloft or Menzoberranzan, were real time.