Grimrock

Isaac wrote:
Generally these styles are mutually exclusive; as in mutually detrimental to the other, and difficult to design combat encounters for both styles to have them work interchangeably as realtime or turn based. Turn based gameplay is not merely a delay in the action; and realtime play isn't just the lack of delay. There is more to both, and the challenge is different for each.

Is it possible to create modular gameplay system so that it changes if you remove or add such constraints ?
I don't understand how this works in detail. My logic is saying that if you remove end turn constraint, you'll end up A.I. script to run indefinetely, till stopped by some list of breaks. But I'm not programmer. I wish I could learn this.

eon wrote:... My logic is saying that if you remove end turn constraint, you'll end up A.I. script to run indefinetely, till stopped by some list of breaks. But I'm not programmer. I wish I could learn this.

I am not a programmer either [hobbyist one at most]. But I can give you an opinion based on example from Fallout 2. In that game, the player character could often be attacked by three or more armored enemies that could each potentially kill the PC in one shot. Done turn based style, the player could try to flee, or at least engage the enemy group with some kind of tactic... But done realtime style, the PC would very likely die each time all three (or more) of them shot at [him]. Done crudely, a switch between realtime & turn based combat style could likely mean that PC rarely wins using realtime, unless the encounters are changed; but those changes might enable the turn based player to trivially win the fight —every time.

So that might basically mean having two different games grafted into one... which usually isn't a great idea IMO. "Myth The Fallen Lords" is one of the best RTS games that I know of, but I think it would be ruined, or badly convoluted if made to accommodate an optional turn based combat sub-system.

I believe that Arcanum's problems likely stemmed from their best efforts to merge the two systems —not being good enough; and they were very experienced game designers.

In general [it seems to me] that games should focus on doing one thing well, rather than doing multiple things passably. It seems a curse of the recent industry that developers commonly make games to please multiple preference... and never (or rarely ever) truly impress any particular segment of players.

If they changed Druidstone today, I think could enjoy either style [RT or TB], but probably not with the option for both.

Can we discuss Druidstone here, or should we do it in the comments on the DS website?
Because I have questions!

Both work but if you have lots of questions it's probably easier to answer here since we don't have an official Druidstone forum yet.

Count me in as VERY interested.

Also, since it is from some of you from LOG - why not create it's own sub forum (on here) for it (especially before release?) since the official site doesn't seem to have a forum?

New blog post is up, discussing major changes to the game!
http://druidstone-game.com/dev-update-1

We are definitely going to set up a Druidstone forum, probably around the time we get a first impressions video out.

petri wrote:New blog post is up, discussing major changes to the game!
http://druidstone-game.com/dev-update-1

We are definitely going to set up a Druidstone forum, probably around the time we get a first impressions video out.

I am so amped for this. Question - is there going to be puzzles like LOG? (I am, personally hoping not - hoping more for a traditional RPG).

@Petri
So is the plan to be Druidstone:SSI-Goldbox as LoG:Dungeonmaster?

Oh man, being sick is no fun, glad to hear you're feeling better!

Party based sounds good, sort of like Icewind Dale maybe