If Project Eternity was turn-based...?

[Nidrolok]

With pause, you can make the game turn-based anyway.

Why do you lie?

[Dream]

There is no "trash fight". There are easier fights and harder fights. Fighting is not some filler content in PE and its ancestors (well in PST MAYBE IT WAS, but I enjoyed combat there as well), it's not supposed to be a chore or uninteresting. Fighting every fight in IE games was awesome from my point of view, each enemy interesting and contextualized, from the gibberling swarms to the colorful mages battles.

 

That's the point though. Because of RTwP those fights were all fun. If the IE games were TB then those easier fights would have been beyond obnoxious (just imagine rescuing Dynaheir late in the game and having to stop and go into a turn based UI for every single gnoll as opposed to just watching your party rip **** up while gnoll bits flew everywhere).

[Grimlorn]

Fight 30 gibberlings with your 6 men party in turn-based combat. 2 Hours to clear the room. Yay.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego.

 

RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is.

 

Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT.

Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot.

However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system.

I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more.

 

I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Dream]

 

I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more.

 

I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged.

 

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

[SophosTheWise]

I could never really get into ToEE, even though I've always wanted to push myself to playing it, but alas, I have to play many other really crappy games because I work as a gaming journalist for a small website in Switzerland. So that leaves me with nearly no time to catch up with some classics I've missed. Nevertheless I've seen videos of ToEE and I've played other turnbased game but somehow this never felt close to the action. So I'm still voting for RTwP but I wouldn't be overly sour if it changed. I just hope (and I'm confident) that they will release and awesome game.

[Nerei]

Fight 30 gibberlings with your 6 men party in turn-based combat. 2 Hours to clear the room. Yay.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego.

 

RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is.

 

Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT.

Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot.

However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system.

I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more.

 

I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged.

 

Well you started out saying people needed the games to be RT because they where bored. Maybe they are bored with TB combat I do not know, but it could be valid.

 

I sure can argue against what is "better". Better is relative to the person applying the label and what criteria you judge by.

Your criteria for a "good game" puts TB high on the list which is fine, but that is judging by your criteria. It is subjective.

If I judge by total sales I can tell you that TB is pretty far down the line in terms of games. By that criteria "Sims" is the better PC game. Starcraft is also high on the list and that is RTwP!

 

Some would argue that League of Legends is the most challenging game simply due to it requiring split time reaction (I have met such people), I do not agree with it but it is a valid argument and judging by the numbers playing likely the more prevalent!

 

Go by Metacritic and it is Half-life 2, a FPS that is the best for PC (I am excluding Mark of the ninja due to the low number of reviews but it is not exactly TBS either). Does that men FPS is "better" than TB? Civilization 2 is very high on the list but tied with Command & Conquer. By that criteria RT is just as good as TB.

 

 

As for TB being more challenging that really depends on the game. Tic-tac-toe is technically a TB game while say Paradox Interactives Hearts of Iron III are RTwP games. Which one is more challenging? I'd say the Paradox game. Extreme case but it is TB vs RTwP.

 

 

I have no problem with you saying that you find TB is better than RT, in many ways I actually agree. That is a subjective analysis and that is fine.

I do however strongly disagree with that it is objectively a better type of game simply due to mechanics, which is basically what you are saying. You can make extremely dumbed down TB games and you can make extremely complex RT games (again tic-tac-toe vs Hearts of Iron III). It depends on the design.

[aka.mecha]

Talking about fun, casting three chain lightning at once is only possible with RTwP gameplay. But i think the game should also be slow, like BG so not too many things happen at once. A lot of action, but not too much. Wasn't it like two or three sword swing animations per actual roll in BG?

[Nerei]

Wasn't it like two or three sword swing animations per actual roll in BG?

 

I think that depends on your number of attacks.

Last time I played IWD I had many animations for each to hit roll, but that was early in the game. More attack each round should make it more like the animation which from what I can tell play at specific speed.

[Grimlorn]

Geez Nerei. Are you seriously trying to change this into a semantics issue of what is better? What's wrong with you?

 

If you're wondering why I was saying what I was saying about RT read the original quote in that quote pyramid that I replied to.

[Grimlorn]

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Nerei]

Well you made some very general assessments about what RT and TB is. Including later that TB is better simply due to the mechanics, which I very much happens to disagree with and argued against.

And things like "what is wrong with you?", makes for a great argument!

 

Anyway I think we should stop this here and just agree to disagree.

[khango]

I hate turn based computer games with a passion (particularly when the turns are not concurrent).

 

"Hoy mate! Now be a good little goblin and stand there while I smack you a couple times. Don't worry, in a couple minutes you'll get your turn. It's only fair."

 

All kinds of mechanics break and become ludicrous and unrealistic in turn-based games.

[Grimlorn]

Well you made some very general assessments about what RT and TB is. Including later that TB is better simply due to the mechanics, which I very much happens to disagree with and argued against.

And things like "what is wrong with you?", makes for a great argument!

 

Anyway I think we should stop this here and just agree to disagree.

I wasn't arguing with you I was sincerely asking. You turned a post talking about mechanics and challenge between TB and RTwP and what has more into a 'what is better' debate. Edited October 25, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Dream]

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

 

If the designers choose to limit options to account for multitasking that's their choice, not an inherent deficit of RT games. By your own admission RT games can have more challenge since if those options aren't limited then you have to account for everything you do in turn based games while also having to deal with the challenges of real time. If a player is skilled enough then they can still process all their options in real time and choose the best course of action, which is where the extra challenge comes from. Simply because you feel that being forced to think on your feet isn't a "real" challenge doesn't make it so. Additionally, again by your own admission, since RTwP games allow you to pause combat at anytime and remove the need to think on your feet then it makes no sense for the designers to limit options for lesser skilled players. As for your running in a circle example; that's an issue of poor AI, and one which can be present in any game type.

 

Finally, regarding your chess example, it supports my point more than yours. Professional chess is played with a time limit precisely because at that point the only way to distinguish yourself skill wise is by being able to react faster than your opponent. Pretty much all the top players are equal when it comes to what strategies and tactics they know. If the games had no time limits they would simply last until one player made a mistake due to exhaustion, which is no different then making a mistake due to not being able to think on your feet fast enough.

[Nerei]

Well you made some very general assessments about what RT and TB is. Including later that TB is better simply due to the mechanics, which I very much happens to disagree with and argued against.

And things like "what is wrong with you?", makes for a great argument!

 

Anyway I think we should stop this here and just agree to disagree.

I wasn't arguing with you I was sincerely asking. You turned a post talking about mechanics and challenge between TB and RTwP and what has more into a 'what is better' debate.

 

I was simply giving you some arguments (many actually) of why TB might not be the best system possible and why RT (with or without a pause function) or some entirely different system might be better depending on what you find to be important. You may not agree with them, but that is your opinion just like it is your opinion, not an actual fact TB clearly is best or most challenging. You said I could not argue against that, so that is exactly what I did.

If I did not come across with that properly then I am sorry, but ultimately what is best/most challenging is a matter of opinions and taste, there is absolutely no hard fact there, only opinions.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Nerei

[Joukehainen]

Why do things always have to turn into two phalanxes?

 

I really enjoyed Starcraft (though moreso watching the matches than playing) and even SC2, and I do enjoy RTSes, but I love turn-based games, and "timer-based" or I guess RTwP as it should be called. Many of my absolute favourite games are either TB or RTwP, but I can definitely appreciate the (different) skillset required of RT games.

 

Can't one enjoy both for different reasons?

 

PE is most likely going to be RTwP, I'd say.

[Dream]

Why do things always have to turn into two phalanxes?

 

I really enjoyed Starcraft (though moreso watching the matches than playing) and even SC2, and I do enjoy RTSes, but I love turn-based games, and "timer-based" or I guess RTwP as it should be called. Many of my absolute favourite games are either TB or RTwP, but I can definitely appreciate the (different) skillset required of RT games.

 

Can't one enjoy both for different reasons?

 

PE is most likely going to be RTwP, I'd say.

 

No doubt. I still remember playing the **** out of HoMM2 when I was a kid. It's just saying one is inherently more challenging than the other is just silly.

[Wolfentir]

Guys have a look a Divinity Originl Sin. There are few gameplay examples on Youtube, here is one

 

 

To me this sort of TB gameplay is much better then RTwP.

[Grimlorn]

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

 

If the designers choose to limit options to account for multitasking that's their choice, not an inherent deficit of RT games. By your own admission RT games can have more challenge since if those options aren't limited then you have to account for everything you do in turn based games while also having to deal with the challenges of real time. If a player is skilled enough then they can still process all their options in real time and choose the best course of action, which is where the extra challenge comes from. Simply because you feel that being forced to think on your feet isn't a "real" challenge doesn't make it so. Additionally, again by your own admission, since RTwP games allow you to pause combat at anytime and remove the need to think on your feet then it makes no sense for the designers to limit options for lesser skilled players. As for your running in a circle example; that's an issue of poor AI, and one which can be present in any game type.

 

Finally, regarding your chess example, it supports my point more than yours. Professional chess is played with a time limit precisely because at that point the only way to distinguish yourself skill wise is by being able to react faster than your opponent. Pretty much all the top players are equal when it comes to what strategies and tactics they know. If the games had no time limits they would simply last until one player made a mistake due to exhaustion, which is no different then making a mistake due to not being able to think on your feet fast enough.

No I didn't say RT games are more challenging. I just said they challenge your ability to multitask and do many things at once. They still have limitations that turn based combat games don't usually have because the player doesn't have to do anything in RT.

 

I'm starting to guess by your posts you're trolling, because all you're doing is putting words in my mouth and twisting my words. All this by your own admission stuff is crap. I'm not admitting any of that. You're misinterpreting my posts.

 

Instead of taking the point I was trying to prove through the chess example. You took the example literally and twisted it to suit your purposes. The point I made was you play better when you have more time to think than when you're rushed to think on your feet. ex: 5-10 second turns. Who cares why chess players play with timers? It's irrelevant. If you can't grasp a simple point like that then what's the point of having a conversation with you?

 

 

I was simply giving you some arguments (many actually) of why TB might not be the best system possible and why RT (with or without a pause function) or some entirely different system might be better depending on what you find to be important. You may not agree with them, but that is your opinion just like it is your opinion, not an actual fact TB clearly is best or most challenging. You said I could not argue against that, so that is exactly what I did.

If I did not come across with that properly then I am sorry, but ultimately what is best/most challenging is a matter of opinions and taste, there is absolutely no hard fact there, only opinions.

No it's a fact TB is better due to the examples I've already listed. It has nothing to do with my opinion or preference. It's basically me pointing out facts about TB and RTwP and people saying they're opinions. No they're not. If you prefer RT just admit it, but don't pretend there are better mechanics, options and more challenge in those types of game. There aren''t.

[Dream]

No I didn't say RT games are more challenging. I just said they challenge your ability to multitask and do many things at once. They still have limitations that turn based combat games don't usually have because the player doesn't have to do anything in RT.

 

I'm starting to guess by your posts you're trolling, because all you're doing is putting words in my mouth and twisting my words. All this by your own admission stuff is crap. I'm not admitting any of that. You're misinterpreting my posts.

 

Instead of taking the point I was trying to prove through the chess example. You took the example literally and twisted it to suit your purposes. The point I made was you play better when you have more time to think than when you're rushed to think on your feet. ex: 5-10 second turns. Who cares why chess players play with timers? It's irrelevant. If you can't grasp a simple point like that then what's the point of having a conversation with you?

 

 

How am I putting words into your mouth? You literally said that RT games are less challenging because designers have to limit options to account for people having to multitask: "Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like." You then proceeded to state that RTwP does not having any multitasking: "Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime." I simply pointed out how those two statements are contradictory because it would make no sense for a designer to take out options when there is no multitasking if the reason to take out options in the first place is to account for multitasking (as YOU said).

 

As for the chess example; I didn't twist anything. The reality is at the upper echelons of any activity (not just chess) you do not perform better with more time. More time generally translates to being able to consider more strategies, but if you're good enough you'll be able to arrive at best strategy every time. When you reach that point the only challenge left to you is to see how fast you can arrive at the best strategy; which is why saying TB is inherently more skillful is just moronic.

 

Finally, the fact that you're trying to resort to the old "well you disagree with me so you must be a troll" cliche is rather telling about who's winning the argument. It's not my fault you're incapable of going one paragraph without contradicting yourself. I'd hate to see how you'd perform in a real time debate as opposed to turn based like on these forums.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Dream

[AGX-17]

With pause, you can make the game turn-based anyway. I actually like real-time with pause more than any other mechanism.

 

That is flawed logic at best. If you have a preference, go ahead and state it. We already know that your preference is the one that Obsidian has decided on, anyway. Don't make absurd, patronizing assertions that RTWP is the same as TB. Taking turns is not the same thing as pausing realtime action by any standard of reason. Starcraft is not a turn-based game, but your logic dictates that it is. The player doesn't get to attack the opponent while the game is paused with the enemy unable to act, and the enemy can't pause the player and attack while the player is unable to act.

[HansKrSG]

I don't want to put a vote on this, my option would be, "that sucks, but I would probably use some money to get the game, just not as much as otherwise". That said, I do like turnbased, but not in the type of game Obsidian is making with PE.

Edited October 26, 2012 by HansKrSG

[Nerei]

No it's a fact TB is better due to the examples I've already listed. It has nothing to do with my opinion or preference. It's basically me pointing out facts about TB and RTwP and people saying they're opinions. No they're not. If you prefer RT just admit it, but don't pretend there are better mechanics, options and more challenge in those types of game. There aren''t.

 

 

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong.

 

It is a fact, that it is your opinion, that the points you listed makes TB games better than RT, nothing more! What you listed may be good points for you, but not everyone that alone means it is not a "fact"!

Light moves at 299.792.458m/s in complete vacuum, that is a fact! That TB games are better than RT due to mechanics, not so much.

 

Take this example:

Lets say I might happen to dislike the slow and more methodical approach that TB offers and find it too easy and too little of a challenge that I got an unlimited amount of time to plan each move.

I might find it challenging to have to manage things with a time-limit, that i have limited time to execute my plans.

I might love that I potentially have to manage several places on a map in real time while in turn based games I have unlimited time, making it easier to multitask such situations.

Using those statements I cannot really see how RT would be worse than TB. Using those RT is better than TB, but it is just opinions, just like your statements is just that, opinions on what makes one type of game better than the other.

 

Ultimately if we play the "fact" game, take these counter statements, they are as as much a "fact" as your "facts":

 

If we assume the Real Time game has not been dumbed down to better accommodate the RT element (which would be a conscious design choice, not an inherit limitation to the RT mechanic), it offers a greater challenge and makes for better games due to it forcing players to act fast compared to Turn Based where you have an infinite amount of time to plan and evaluate your strategies.

 

and just for fun, a very opinionated "fact"

Turn based games have worse mechanics than Real time due to them not properly accounting for the time pressure that all real life scenarios have.

Does that mean we now have facts that say different things? Where does that leave us?

 

Your basic argument however:

 

TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP

 

 

Due to the very broad and vague style can be countered by comparing two radically different, but still TB and RT games.

Again compare tic-tac-toe with just about any decent RT game, compare it with BG2 or IWD/IWD2 HoF mode if you want!

Which one is more challenging, which one has the more complex mechanics?

[Althernai]

Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

Your statement regarding real time games is correct, but the one about RTwP is nonsense. There is no reason to have fewer options in an RTwP game, you just need actions to have a characteristic timescale of more than half a second or so (the time it takes most people to pause the game). Once the game is paused, the player has exactly as much time (i.e. unlimited time) to pick and choose as in a turn based game. If a battle is difficult, it is possible to pause the game and reassess the situation after practically every action.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

What does this have to do with anything? Running around is a legitimate strategy that relies on a significant numerical advantage. There is no rule out there that says you have to stand and fight when there are 6 of you and 1 of the enemy.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

Yes, of course -- but this has nothing to do with RTwP. Once you pause the game, you are playing without a timer. The only twitch element is physical act of pausing, but since this can be done so much faster than anything happens in the game, it doesn't really matter. With the game paused, you can fully plan out everything out. The only difference is in complexity: instead of planning just one character's turn at a time, you must plan for everything at once (both what your characters will do and the actions of the enemy).

[churros]

For those who did not play TOEE to higher levels, you have no idea what modern turn-based CRPGs can bring.

 

Before I played TOEE I was neutral about turn-based combat in CRPGs.

 

Of course, I really enjoyed playing BG series, IWD series and other similar games like dragon age, but when I pulled out my dusty copy of TOEE to actually try it(when it first came out it was too buggy to play and I just stashed it and forgot about it) my preference leaned heavily towards turn-based combat.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, fighting 30 poorly equipped goblins with a party of 5 is not boring at all in TOEE, as you can cleave through 5 or 6 enemies at a time with a single warrior with Greater Cleave in one turn. You really do not have to spam fireballs to get through these encounters to keep the game entertaining with a well-thought out combat engine.

 

Another thing that I really liked about TOEE style combats were attacks of opportunity. I think AoO adds a significant tactical aspect to the combat as you really need to think about where you want to place your characters. With the AoO system, you do not have to add in a gimped MMO style threat system to use your fighters as tanks(like in the DA series), since AoO already allows the front line to perform as a protective wall for your mages and archers. In a real-time engine, AoO is almost impossible to implement well since each characters will be active all at once.

 

Eternity will not use the DnD rule set like TOEE did, but with similar implementations, it is definitely possible to create a non-boring TB combat engine.