Deathfire: Ruins of Nethermore Kickstarter Update #8, $73,183 and Counting

G3 Studios is back at it with an eighth update to their Kickstarter campaign, and while the amount of funding has started to taper off, that hasn't stopped the Guido Henkel-led development studio to continue reaching out to press and doing an interview with and a video interview with Matt Barton (which isn't online just yet). From the update itself:
The advantages of turn-based over real-time combat are certainly in the eye of the beholder, and his or her preferences, but also lie in the game itself.

When I have my action-RPG hat on, I'm perfectly happy with real-time combat. I play a lot of (Skyrim,) which is entirely in real time, and I enjoy it tremendously. I also loved the combat in games like (Legends of Grimrock) or the original (Dungeon Master,) etc. even if it became a mad clickfest at times. Regardlessly, they serve their purpose well in each respective game because the game as a whole was designed that way.

However, when I put on my more traditional role-player hat, real time doesn't cut it for me for a number of reasons. For one, it gets very hectic, and when you are trying to control a party of six players, each decked out with various weapons and spells, this can quickly become a nightmare to handle. Not to mention, that I always feel at a disadvantage, because the computer doesn't have to do all that.

In addition, real time combat somewhat limits the number of options you can offer the player at any one time. After all, actions have to accessible very quickly or else your characters may be dead before you even selected the right command.

It further minimizes real tactics and strategy, as you are essentially forced to react reflexively, without actual thinking about the situation. So there is a tremendous difference in focus between real-time and turn-based combat.

As I said before, real-time combat is not a problem per se, and it works wonderfully in a certain type of game. (Deathfire: Ruins of Nethermore) is, however, not that kind of game, as we are trying to dig deeper and create a richer role-playing experience. It is just not going to be an action-RPG.

Therefore, in our game, for every character in your party you will have the opportunity to think about and decide what you want them to do. You can select weapons, you can target specific opponents, depending on who you feel is the most vulnerable or dangerous, you can cast spells, use items, potions, etc. and you can do all of that at your own leisure without incurring any penalties.

This is all pretty standard stuff, really, and has been done very successfully in countless RPGs in the past. We will be adding things such as diminishing damage based on distance, etc. to the mix also, just as a regular pen&paper game would.

The other question that comes up a lot, however, is why we are not switching to a third-person perspective during combat, like the (Realms of Arkania) games did, for example. The advantages are obvious. You can move and place your characters like you would on a chess board, almost, treating each one entirely independently, and then offer all of the aforementioned action options on top of it.

The third person perspective also gives you a better overview over the battlefield itself, thus allowing you to strategize better, and use tactical steps for you encounter, such as hiding behind obstacles and walls, among other things to flank out an opponent. It adds complexity to the mix that make the combat even more engaging.