Is Turn Based RPG's Dead?

Originally Posted by txa1265
Really? How about pure critical thinking, forward looking, logical strategic thought?

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Am I misreading this or are you implying that one of the oldest games in the world has no cultural relevance?

My issue with chess is complex, but I will try to explain.

There are three reasons for me to play a game, to master it, for entertainment (including the social element) and for improving your skills.

As far as I concern chess have been mastered to a point in which I find it time to master something else. If you are seriously going to put down your life in becoming a master, the role as chessmaster is crowded, as is the role of solving the Rubik's Cube and some other similar games. Why not master something new?

For entertainment and social interaction, chess is just another game, and as far as I concern there are funnier games to play.

Finally when it comes to training your critical thinking, forward looking and logical strategic thought, I say that there are better challenges here as well. Learning mathematics for example is more rewarding than trying to become better at chess. Engaging in real challenges that represent a more dynamic and changing playing field than the chessboard can be better too.

In the end, if people like chess, go on play it. I just feel it's an overrated game.

Weird….too many chess masters equals no point to the game. If that is the way you feel then more power to you. The armed forces would disagree with you, but you're not shipping out into a war anytime soon so maybe there is no point for you.

Personally, I like the game. I don't love it, but I sure wouldn't say there was no point to it.

I sort of agree at the point that Chess has been "mastered" … Just take a look at how formulated everything is … No creativity anymore, because everything has been played through the last hundreds of years …

My bigges grudge is that modern chess programs (yes, to me they appear rather like mathematics programs than games ) , are advertised like "the strongest engine EVAR !" - And nothing for the biginner.

I know that I sound odd, but I couldn't stand playing against "games" that are so strong (AI-wise), that they have to be "crippled" in order to be playable for beginners …

"So, you wanna fight against our Famous Sword-Master ? Okay, let's hack him arms and legs off, then maybe you'll have a chance …"

Or, to put it in different words : Nowadays, Chess programs seem to be exclusively developed for wannabe Chess Masters … they create the impression to me as if beginners are not wanted at all and considered just a nuisance, nothing more …

But that's a purely subjective grudge I hold. Others might think differently against chess.

On the other hand, RTS games become boringly repetive to me … I uninstalled Empire At War after a few days … Everything's the same …

I just can't play RTS anymore, because it's always the same to me, how the AI reacts. Be swift, be fast, build up as fast as possible, created the biggest possible amount of troops … sweep over the enemy … away with him …

… Boooring …

In Star Wars Battlefront I can do something I just can't in RTS games (and often in TBS games as well) : Create a tiny group of what I call "commandos", which are travelling as a tiny group deep into the enemy lines, avaiding all battle at all - until they stand before a town, control point of whatever, and take this in a sudden.

I don't know of any AI that does this.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Weird….too many chess masters equals no point to the game. If that is the way you feel then more power to you. The armed forces would disagree with you, but you're not shipping out into a war anytime soon so maybe there is no point for you.
Personally, I like the game. I don't love it, but I sure wouldn't say there was no point to it.

It's a deeply subjective feeling I have, it's not like it's controlling my life or anything and I wouldn't say no if a nice person asked if I wanted to play with him/her just to be social.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I sort of agree at the point that Chess has been "mastered" … Just take a look at how formulated everything is … No creativity anymore, because everything has been played through the last hundreds of years …

You catch many aspects of what I had in mind.

Guys, take up high level Bridge. It has all the good qualities of chess while being far more social. You'll never really master Bridge as you play with a partner against another partnership, but it uses logic, planning, imagination, visualisation, maths, memory, psychology, etc, etc. Oh, it's a lot of fun too!!

Originally Posted by Corwin
Guys, take up high level Bridge. It has all the good qualities of chess while being far more social. You'll never really master Bridge as you play with a partner against another partnership, but it uses logic, planning, imagination, visualisation, maths, memory, psychology, etc, etc. Oh, it's a lot of fun too!!

I might take you up on that one Corwin.

Corwin forgot one of the rules of Bridge… you have to be a 90 year old lady to play.

I used to work as a server in a country club, and every wed. we had a Bridge night with the ladies… all of which were so old they knew Methusalah. One had a nice 3rd gen Camaro though. Z28, with 34,000 miles on the clock. About an 85. While not hardly desirable, it was still in very excellent condition.

Originally Posted by JemyM
My issue with chess is complex, but I will try to explain.

In the end, if people like chess, go on play it. I just feel it's an overrated game.

I think your personal feelings are fine, and I support your decision not to like chess.

However, regarding the game in general, it is a bit of a mess. Probably not worth pursuing, as anyone can see the gobs of research showing the benefits of kids learning chess.

Originally Posted by txa1265
However, regarding the game in general, it is a bit of a mess. Probably not worth pursuing, as anyone can see the gobs of research showing the benefits of kids learning chess.

LMAO, you got that right. There's no point to develop critical thinking skills at all.

Bah! Only girly men think! Real men use their head the way it was intended; in a headbutt!

(Can't play chess worth a flip, but still enjoys a good game of Steel Panthers).

To get back to the roots of this thread turn-based gaming are alive and kicking…. eschalon book II anyone? and after that book III… and after that… who know maybe Tactica: Maiden of Faith…… turn-based will never die….

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
To get back to the roots of this thread turn-based gaming are alive and kicking…. eschalon book II anyone? and after that book III… and after that… who know maybe Tactica: Maiden of Faith…… turn-based will never die….

And Age of Decadence

Originally Posted by txa1265
And Age of Decadence

I don't understand Age of Decadence. It's a turn based game with one character? To me that makes no sense. Turn based almost cries party based to me. To exploit several characters skills/spells/abilities and coordinate them as a well oiled machine, ahhh, now that's what I'm talking about!

I agree that parties and turn-based work very well together but Fallout was more than good enough for me to prove it can work.

I don't understand Age of Decadence. It's a turn based game with one character? To me that makes no sense. Turn based almost cries party based to me. To exploit several characters skills/spells/abilities and coordinate them as a well oiled machine, ahhh, now that's what I'm talking about!

That's the same about Eschalon too… though I still enjoyed it much. Of course when it comes to strategy and gameplay nothing can beat a turn-based game with lot of different character types…… acctually I don't know of any other such a game in development except Tactica: MoF… right now.

While TB screams for a full party, it works quite well without when done right. Eschalon works well because it's pretty smooth how it works, and if you keep moving/attacking/casting then it only mildly feels TB.

One thing I've often done is try to play a single character throughout many of the games I own. Some are literally impossible; mechanics restrictions that the devs never thought would come up render things unplayable. And example is the old Might and Magic series (3-5). You have to have two characters with pathfinding and mountaineering to use those skills. Sadly, having only one character does not exclude you from this.

Another is Bard's Tale, IIRC each game requires a different class to beat it. Oh well.

The best of the old school was the old Ultima 6/7 and the Gold Box games. They had some of the best tactical combat, outmatching many of the newer games I've played. While I love BG, tactics are pretty well impossible when monsters simply walk through your front line to reach the weakling mages in the back.

My own plan originally was to offer a tactical combat system, in addition to a 'fast' combat in the vein of the old Wizardry/BT/M&M games. And maybe a auto-calc just because. Pretty much, the immense amount of artwork killed that for now. I'm already not including portraits, and probably not much animation, just because I'd never get things done.

IIRC, BW (the guy who made Eschalon) said something about working on another engine, with which there'll be another style of CRPG. Food for thought, though the E series comes first (obviously, EII is pushing towards BETA now).