Turn-Based vs Real-Time Combat @ CRPG Addict

Tragos said:

Very sad that games with good potential are using boring and gay turn based system.

Click to expand...

Very sad that games with good potential are using boring action based system.

I'd LOVE to play some games - if ONLY they had TB instead of this (beware, cynism !) crappy "pause-for-turn-based" system !

Drakensang 1 & 2 SHOULD imho have been completely turn-based - but what did they do ? They went for the masses.

And the masses want boring, adrenaline-infested action, action, action, actio, action, action ...

ChienAboyeur said:

Personal experience.

Click to expand...

I doubt so.

Have you ever watched yourself while playing ? I sometimes do so.

Why do Hooligans what they do ? I have read several times reports in the press giving statements of hooligans who indeed do it "for the adrenaline rush".

Are you possibly already accustomed to playing certain playing styles ? Because if so, this could mean that you aren't able to witness certain reactions of your Psyche and body anymore ... What one becomes accustomed to automatically becomes "normal", usually ...

ChienAboyeur said:

At the beginning of what?

Adjusting strategy later? Later than what?

Click to expand...

Quoting you:
"...If you developp your strategy before going into combat..."

It is somehow counter intuitive.

People who play TBS games and feel an 'adrenaline rush' should have stayed hooked.

Turn based games have similar sequences to gambling when a dice throw can determine all. Basically, turn based games are throwing dices.

I used to play concurrently live action games like beat'em ups/shoot'em ups and turn based games. Cant state that I was more excited because of the type of action it provides.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

And the masses want boring, adrenaline-infested action, action, action, actio, action, action …

Click to expand...

Boring action as opposed to interesting nap , delicious taste of water etc

LoL , post of the month

ChienAboyeur said:

Turn based games have similar sequences to gambling when a dice throw can determine all. Basically, turn based games are throwing dices.

Click to expand...

That's just pure nonsense. You are talking about random-based vs deterministic games, not about TB vs RT. Randomness plays currently quite prominent role in games, regardless of the genre.

Daddy32 said:

Quoting you:
"…If you developp your strategy before going into combat…"

Click to expand...

Actually, you should have information about your PC character, his potentials and what situations are the best to express the potentials at their highest. So your strategy is properly fed on this side of the information.

Depending on the system of combat (meaning here either it is all brand new or have been re used from another game, answering to basic expectation), you have partial information on the enemy you will meet.

Finally, your strategy should include tactics to buy time and learn about your enemy the missing bits.

Daddy32 said:

This means nothing. Computers are devices capable of simulating various kind of experiences. Saying one kind of these experiences is more computer-like than other is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Only as ridiculous as not reading the rest of my reply I was distinguishing two design types - one is to emulate a the experience of playing a board game, the other is not.

Daddy32 said:

That's just pure nonsense. You are talking about random-based vs deterministic games, not about TB vs RT. Randomness plays currently quite prominent role in games, regardless of the genre.

Click to expand...

No. I speak about sequences in games.

Turn based game sequences are usually concluded by a ceremonial end turn button. Which gives similar sequences to dice throwing.

Real time is certainly not confined by this ceremonial as it can lead to mashing buttons.

The dice are cast in one move. Just like turn based games are closed by pressing once on a button.

Lurking Grue said:

Same here. Liking CMBN a lot (I confess, I'm an old CM grog, all the way from the misty old CMBO days). I like the turn-based WeGo mode a lot and would love to see a cRPG try it once. You could have all the "whiz-bang" and mayhem of real time animation and what have you, but all of it with turn-based sensibilities. Make the turn e.g. 5-10 seconds long and have the player control 6-8 characters. Oh that'd be cool. One can always dream…

Click to expand...

CMBN uses WEGO system. Give orders beforehand and then execute simultaniously. Cant recall if any crpg has ever used it. Some japanese crpgs perhaps? IGOUGO is what turnbased crpgs usually use.

Lurking Grue said:

Heh, good screenshot. However, that grenade is not going to do much with its lever (AKA spoon) still in place - it's essentially just an elaborate rock that way.

Click to expand...

Apparently they didnt model all details hehe. Theres a lot of small details in the game though like range charts in ATGs.

Tragos said:

Boring action as opposed to interesting nap , delicious taste of water etc

LoL , post of the month

Click to expand...

The problem with RTS is, that everything is just the same.

I just don't play an RTS games anymore simply because everything's so predictable :

- build up an army
- upgrading
- defend the base
- run over everyone

You cannot imagine how bored I was after the third or so level when I was playing the "Battle of Middle Earth II" by EA.

I make my same argument every time I get into this discussion, but here it goes again:

I've done the live-action medieval combat thing. I've also done fencing off-and-on for quite a few years. Those are about as close to the "real thing" as I ever want to get.

A lot of people claim that real-time / action RPGs are more visceral than turn-based. I don't know that swinging a virtual sword with a mouse movement or click - or even with a Kinect / Wii controller - feels any more like my own experience of real-life simulation, first off. It's still very, very different.

Secondly, once I got to a certain skill level, while reaction speed is ALWAYS a concern, it *feels* a lot more to me like it was almost turn based. It's move, countermove, counter-counter move, with both combatants playing a chess-like game in their heads. "If I do this, I can draw him into a counter here, which I can then try and respond thusly." Plans change as they come into contact with your opponent's, but there was a dynamic rhythm to it.

With larger-scale combats, it was a bit more chaotic, but with a strong leader it still followed certain beats and strategies. It was a LOT more complicated trying to communicate the changes to everyone on your team on the battlefield, but after a while it was pretty easy to see what was happening almost as if you were looking at a 2D overhead map, as one force managed to - for example - turn the opposing army's flank, wheeling them around the center position and then effectively "crossing the T" and chew up the line from the side.

But to less experienced participants (including myself, when I first started), it was all a confused, high-speed jumble. They didn't know what happened other than finding themselves quite suddenly facing too many enemies at once. But they had fun trying to use vigorous fighting (or running away) as a substitute for failed tactics from above.

For me, that experience is often represented better with a turn-based game. The controls and interface for a computer game are - STILL! - too cumbersome to replicate that experience well in an action-oriented or real-time game. Those are still fun, but they "feel" less "realistic" to me.

I know this is kind of fuzzy, and I can't say I have a distinct preference for one kind over the other (other than my defense of turn-based games… 'cause they are frequently the ones that need defending). But that's kind of how it works with me.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Very sad that games with good potential are using boring action based system.

I'd LOVE to play some games - if ONLY they had TB instead of this (beware, cynism !) crappy "pause-for-turn-based" system !

Drakensang 1 & 2 SHOULD imho have been completely turn-based - but what did they do ? They went for the masses.

And the masses want boring, adrenaline-infested action, action, action, actio, action, action …

Click to expand...

wait wait youre saying drakensang was an adrenaline fueled, exciting action game?

OH MY GOD

RampantCoyote said:

I've done the live-action medieval combat thing. I've also done fencing off-and-on for quite a few years. Those are about as close to the "real thing" as I ever want to get.

Click to expand...

What real thing? Combat is fictional in RPGs.

Fencing was culturally affected by duel of honour, requesting people to fight face to face. It is unidimensional by then, reducing quite a lot the angles and ending with sequences "attaque, parade, riposte" In fencing, no much wrapping movements to change angles towards the opponent.

RPGs has that they have grown to focus on combat and having to developp other aspects. Combat is only one aspect in RPGs and is introduced through the role of the character. Non figthing roles are also material for RPGs. But cRPGs decided over making combat an essential component.

Beat'em ups could afford other level of quality in combat as combat is by nature (and not by decision) essential. Budget wise, easier.
So beat'em ups offered situations where alignment toward the opponent does not force a turn based sequence. They could also introduce other factors like momentum and unpredicability.
TW2 does a fine job on that point.

RPGs feature fictional combat with seasoned fighters in their own gameworld, gameworld that allow superior physical prowesses. Where is the real thing in all that?

Besides, shooters do not deliver the same level of discussion on real-time/turn-based. While shooters suffer from direct comparison to real and actual battle field experience based on ranged weapons. Contrary to medieval set RPGs.

SAGO said:

wait wait youre saying drakensang was an adrenaline fueled, exciting action game?

OH MY GOD

Click to expand...

No.

I was saying that, according to a LOT of fans, Drakensang didn't go far enough in terms of turn-based combat.

Quite a lot of fans found the pause-thing not good, to put it mildly.

Zloth said:

Pause Based: Looks more like a battle than turn based but the pausing means it will never look as much like a battle as an action based game. Can allow for more complexity but, unless you expect the player to pause every second, it can't be as complex as a turned based game.

Click to expand...

I´m not sure if we´re in disagreement on this or not, but the fact RTwP allows for actions to happen simultaneously can add a lot to combat´s complexity.
Attacks of opportunity and such in TB don´t really cut it in this regard, the sorta exception may be phase based variant (as in Wizardry).

Another good thing about RTwP is its flexibility/"customizability", which is actually something you hinted at in the "unless you expect the player to pause every second" part.
In games with diverse encounter difficulty (which I consider to be one of the marks of good encounter design), RTwP allows players to customize combat´s "meta-flow" on the fly. More complex an encounter is, more often they´re likely to pause and they can deal with easier encounters fast in real time (and/or let the AI resolve it) without having to wait for turns.

The system is probably more prone to exploits and maybe its biggest issue is its tendency to be more chaotic when it comes to feedback and controllability. "The chaos" can be however mitigated when the system allows players to set an automatic pause bound to a certain event.

The fact it allows for simultaneous actions while it can retain gameplay largely independent on players´ reflexes is a big plus of RTwP imo.
Baldur´s Gate 2 with Sword Coast Stratagems is a good example of a tactically pretty complex RTwP experience.

Doesn´t mean I think RTwP is inherently better than TB. All systems have its pluses and minuses, type of the game is a factor, etc.

I think the main reasons why TB is lacking in recent AA/AAA RPGs is probably its relative slowness and it fits with "modern visuals" the least.

So why is it that their is a market for tb strategy with games like civ, kings blounty and homm , but no market for tb rpgs?

If it is RTS games vs TBS games, maybe because the two are meaningfully different.

RTS for example are more articulated around missions, campaign, while TBS game are more sandbox with players created narratives etc...

Looks to me both provide a significantly different experience from each other (other than combat resolution) to explain there can be two different markets.

IMO Turn based combat in an RPG will always be superior to real time combat. I don't have any fancy arguments except that I enjoy it a whole lot more. I'm replaying TOEE at the moment and having a better time with the combat in a rpg than I have in a long time. Really looking forward to Dead State and AoD.

I don't mind turn based combat in a game that is completely turn based, but I find it highly annoying when a game is functioning in real time, then suddenly switches to turn based just because combat has start (such as in TOEE). Its disjointed and takes me out of the experience.