Revolver

Why ? Those are not RPG's Because you brought them up as examples! (Leaving the comp- will continue this with you tomorrow)

What you're saying is that if you could move your characters around tactically, the sales figures would be drastically lower- I really find that extremely hard to believe. That was an example of an extremely poorly implemented TB game- as in not representative of the style- and it still sold decently.

You can't compare the FR license w/ the Greyhawk license, just as you can't compare a game w/ bad reviews (nothing to do w/ combat) with ones with good reviews. I get to the "bugs" part later. Give me an example of a squad based combat computer game that meets your sales expectations. Commandos? Fallout Tactics? Nope. I'm guessing here, but the king of that genre is probably X-com. (BEFORE it went real-time). That's no reason not to make a game in a certain style!

Now you're attributing Pokemon sales to lack of movement. I prefer to believe that it's because it's based on a huge card gaming phenomenon among little kids. Your sales figures do nothing to show that a TB RPG with movement can't sell these days. How many people do you think said for instance, I looked at Fallout, tried out the demo, but I didn't buy it because the combat sucked. Edit: Regarding FF Tactics- I only brought it up b/c I heard it sold well. I tried it once- the combat was horribly slow and boring, much more boring than the combat in a turn-based CRPG.

SP- you're still attributing positive TB sales to other factors and negative TB sales to TB killing an otherwise good game. And the opposite for realtime. None of this screams, "Obsidian bombs b/c it dared to release a TB RPG"

The Temple of Elemental Evil is one of the best known D&D modules, if not the best known, regardless of whether it is Greyhawk or not. But like I said above it sold really well at first based on that name and because it was D&D. That really wasn't my point. The license definitely helped its sales. But you can't compare BG sales (FR, or "We've got Drizzt!" license) w/ TOEE sales (Greyhawk).

So restricting the ability to move explains why FF sold so well. Brilliant. On the D&D note. How many Greyhawk books do you see when you go to the bookstore? How many Forgotten Realms books do you see? Didn't Final Fantasy Tactics sell well? Wasnt there a movement grid?

What titles are you comparing here? Why are TB JRPGs excluded from the sales figures?!? You bring them up but fail to give an explanation. You can't use famous game licenses as an excuse for high TB sales and not for high RT sales. The question you should be asking is, did KOTOR sell because it was real time?? Look, if a game has a famous license, gets good reviews and is advertised on TV, its going sell. I think the only comparison that could quite possibly work is Silent Storm vs Commmandos. Anyone have the sales figures for that?

edit: moved to next page

I agree that hybrids are just a disaster. And I'm not convinced that real time squad based combat is controllable to a satisfactory level. And I agree that squad turned based combat with multiple enemies in a RPG can get tedious. I prefer single character control FO style TB myself. But, the point of this thread is not to say which one is better. Each combat system has its benefits. My point is, that it's time for a new RPG with turned based combat, and I think Obsidian can be the one to deliver it. Shadowpaladin has brought up sales figures and the idea that games with well known licenses sell well, something that I brought up in the first post (with the opposing argument). But theres no sales figure comparison we can make to prove that turn-based games will not sell. BG and NWN sold well b/c of the Forgotten Realms license. TOEE didn't sell well b/c it was in the less popular Greyhawk, and was filled with bugs, and barely had a story. Lionheart didn't sell well because its realtime combat wasnt done well and it was an unknown world. FOs were not a bigger success because they were mature rated. Commandos and SS didn't sell well only in America. I can go on and on for both sides and prove absolutely nothing. So to make a game real-time ONLY b/c "TB will not sell" really shows a lack of thinking, and is really just "following the herd."

I'm of the opinion that a good RPG shouldn't have any "easy fights" unless they are initiated by the user, or serve some significant purpose. I hate this old RPG mentality that it will be boring unless we throw in some token fights along the way. If the game is boring, having extra combat isn't going to save it. Including real-time for the purpose of bypassing easy fights is extremely pointless- why have the fights in the first place? Why not have the cupcakes run away, and not stick random things like rats in the way to waste the player's time?

All this food talk makes me wonder if there's ever been a cooking game? Maybe there should be a "God of Cookery" RPG/Action Seriously, I would want to see a RPG set in modern times. Maybe in conflict areas like Afghanistan or places in Africa, where someone really could be out there alone and have to fight all the time.

WeaponsOfAssDestruction edit: (this is from http://www.livejournal.com/users/kim_jong_il__/ )

Saddam

SPECIAL

Rules!

Magellan

somalia (i liked your tasty AIDs better )

AIDS

fury road

swords

2pac

edit: flavor (late again) (original was tuna)

Nukes edit: (for Iran)

Disney