Turn-Based or Real Time

[Sensuki]

Interesting how you assume that I have never played Jagged Alliance 2 or any "hard" turn-based game.

 

Like I said, if you can play realtime with pause games, then turn-based games are no problem.

You didn't answer the question though. And by the way what difficulty do you play games on?

 

Interesting. Then from a marketing perspective RTwP is the better choice, because more people like it. rofl

 

I also find it interesting how you think that the sluggish and inept have absolutely no problem playing RTwP games. How many times have I read "RTwP is confusing, and the combat is too fast, I can't into that. Derp, derp, derp".

Marketing is a blight on the earth. And luckily inXile's decision was based on what they thought would be best for the game. Turn based also won the vote, if only by 200 votes.

 

It's true that some die-hard turn-based fans don't like the 'stress' of real-time combat. RTwP suffers less from this, because of the pause feature. You are talking about real time with pause here, not real-time.

 

Allow me to quote the illustrious Vault Dweller: For the record he's talking about the early 90s XCOM, not X-COM: Enemy Unknown.

 

The main difference between turns and pauses, so brilliantly illustrated by XCOM, is that when your turn is over, someone else’s turn starts, and if you didn’t prepare for that, well, mostly likely you are dead and it’s “game over” for you. In RT it’s perfectly acceptable to run toward a door, open it, hit pause, review the situation, pick targets and start kicking ass in an unbelievable but visually pleasing fashion. In XCOM if you open a door when your turn ends, and a hostile character is in the room, you are dead. What you may see as a flaw is actually a quick test of your tactics employed during your turn. If you fail, your character dies. You need to carefully plan your actions and then you’ll have a chance to beat games like XCOM or Jagged Alliance.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Sensuki

[teknoman2]

 

and about the contradictions, since combat is not the important part it doesnt really matter if it is TB or RT, so you cant just say "the game is ruined because of the combat system".

If it doesn't matter, because Torment isn't about combat, then why must it have turn-based combat and not RTwP combat like the spiritual predecessor?

 

arcanum had a combat system that sucked in both RT and TB mode, yet it is hailed as one of the best RPG ever

A decent combat system would have vastly improved Arcanum.

 

i plead indifference on the combat system. it is not important and so i do not care which type they use. if you think the combat of a game like torment is so important that the type used (regrdless of how well or not it is made) will ruin the entire game, i think you are playing the wrong game

arcanum would certainly be a better game if combat was not so bad, however it was not the combat that made it what it was, and that is even more true for torment. personally, i would have preffered that torment had no combat at all (both the old and the new)

[Sensuki]

The combat in Torment will likely encompass 5% of the total game time, and be avoidable. So yes if anyone gets up in a ruckus over that I cannot help but laugh. They must realllllly not like turn-based - which is also funny.

[PrimeJunta]

I've seen this mentioned multiple times by several different people on these forums and I'm genuinely confused. ToEE means Temple of Elemental Evil, right? I got that game as a gift from a friend soon after it was released. Of all of the turn based games I've played, it is most certainly not the one I would bring up in an argument about how turn based games can be good.

I disagree. Let's see why.

 

First, that has to be one of the buggiest games I've ever played. My most vivid memory of the combat was that at some point I used a spell that summoned a moon dog (or something of the sort, I don't remember the exact name) and the creature just wouldn't go away. It could not be killed and it persisted across multiple fights. At first, I thought there was some kind of time limit and reloading later would require a lot of backtracking so I just kept going -- it stayed with me even through the final battle. There were other bugs, I just don't remember them as well.

 

It is buggy. There's also not much, uh, game to the game. Just an extended dungeon crawl and endless bugbears. Admittedly pretty dungeon and beautifully-rendered bugbears.

 

Second, even if we ignore the bugs, I don't remember anything about it would make it the paragon of turn based games. A substantial section of it was low-level D&D with its usual flaws (luck matters a lot and player options are limited). The encounter design and variety were mediocre. I'm trying to think of what aspect of the combat could be considered great and nothing comes to mind -- the game just didn't make much of an impression.

I agree about the flaws of D&D, especially low-level D&D. Getting to level 2 was a genuine chore.

 

Basically, if I compare ToEE to a good RTwP game like, say, BG2:SoA (in terms of combat alone, never mind the story and such), the latter wins by a lot. It's not close at all to the point where it's not something I would consider debatable. Maybe you can explain what was so good about the turn based combat in ToEE?

Right. This may be a bit long, but you asked.

 

First off, my thoughts on D&D as a system. I kind of love/hate it. I've DM'ed PnP D&D since... 1985, I think. All editions except 4e. Mechanically it ranges from godawful (AD&D, both editions), to passable (1st ed, 3d ed). I won't go into the details of the why and the wherefore of it.

 

However, one thing D&D does do well -- especially in the later incarnations -- is support a vast range of character builds and special abilities. D&D3 has feats, spells, and spell-likes which are genuinely fun, and hooks them into characters which play really differently. In PnP D&D, that is. The fighters plant themselves to hold a line, while your rogue sneaks behind to backstab the enemy mage and then dodge back into the shadows, while your ranger shoots them full of arrows, your cleric buffs and heals, and your wizard looks for an opening to blast them with something nasty and area-effected. Good fun.

 

ToEE is the only cRPG where you can actually effectively do this. Coordinate an entire party in a meaningful way. Because it takes micromanagement, and the party has to do its thing simultaneously for it to work. The closest approximation to this type of tactics in a RTwP game I've seen has been in IWD, and that only because the maps are specifically designed with, say, choke points your tanks can hold while others do their thing -- and even there, rogues are pretty much useless because you'd still have to micromanage them, which means you won't be micromanaging your casters, which means that either they'll be doing nothing (if you're sane and have switched off their AI casting), or doing something horribly unsuitable, like dropping a fireball right on the rogue as she's sneaking back.

 

The combat in ToEE requires actual, meaningful tactics -- like a group of polearm-wielders controlling a choke point as a phalanx, while ranged and support characters do their thing from behind. D&D has quite passable rules for reach and attack of opportunity, which build on feats like Cleave, but they don't actually mean anything in a RTwP game.

 

TL;DR: The thing about ToEE isn't that it's a particularly good game (it isn't), but that it shows the potential of what TB combat could be when combined with a rich, complex system of character-building mechanics. I would love to see a cRPG with equally rich character-building and combat mechanics, but without D&D's deficiences, and with TB combat that lets me make the most of both.

 

PS. Why is it OK for a sequel to have completely different combat (e.g. Fallout 3 vs Fallouts 1 and 2), but a thematic successor must have the same kind of combat to qualify? I'd think it's more the other way around.

[Helm]

 

Interesting how you assume that I have never played Jagged Alliance 2 or any "hard" turn-based game.

 

Like I said, if you can play realtime with pause games, then turn-based games are no problem.

You didn't answer the question though. And by the way what difficulty do you play games on?

I have played many turn-based games, including Jagged Alliance.

 

Why do you want to know with which difficulty setting I play games? With which difficulty setting do you play games?

 

 

Interesting. Then from a marketing perspective RTwP is the better choice, because more people like it. rofl

 

I also find it interesting how you think that the sluggish and inept have absolutely no problem playing RTwP games. How many times have I read "RTwP is confusing, and the combat is too fast, I can't into that. Derp, derp, derp".

Marketing is a blight on the earth. And luckily inXile's decision was based on what they thought would be best for the game. Turn based also won the vote, if only by 200 votes.

 

It's true that some die-hard turn-based fans don't like the 'stress' of real-time combat. RTwP suffers less from this, because of the pause feature. You are talking about real time with pause here, not real-time.

 

Allow me to quote the illustrious Vault Dweller: For the record he's talking about the early 90s XCOM, not X-COM: Enemy Unknown.

 

The main difference between turns and pauses, so brilliantly illustrated by XCOM, is that when your turn is over, someone else’s turn starts, and if you didn’t prepare for that, well, mostly likely you are dead and it’s “game over” for you. In RT it’s perfectly acceptable to run toward a door, open it, hit pause, review the situation, pick targets and start kicking ass in an unbelievable but visually pleasing fashion. In XCOM if you open a door when your turn ends, and a hostile character is in the room, you are dead. What you may see as a flaw is actually a quick test of your tactics employed during your turn. If you fail, your character dies. You need to carefully plan your actions and then you’ll have a chance to beat games like XCOM or Jagged Alliance.

Inxile was saying for weeks that they had a strong preference for turn-based and that the game will be better with this combat system (for a reason that is unsubstantiated imo). I assume that this turned the vote in favor of turn-based.

 

Anyway, it is also perfectly acceptable if I open the door at the beginning of my turn in XCOM. I then have all the time in the world to plan my actions and the aliens can't do very much. Once I enter that door in a RTwP game I will probably pause the game to get an overview (which isn't very different from a turn-based game), but the second I unpause the enemies will immediatly start attacking. You have to constantly be aware of every action that is going on in this room at any possible moment and react accordingly. Some people find this overwhelming.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Helm

[Helm]

 

 

and about the contradictions, since combat is not the important part it doesnt really matter if it is TB or RT, so you cant just say "the game is ruined because of the combat system".

If it doesn't matter, because Torment isn't about combat, then why must it have turn-based combat and not RTwP combat like the spiritual predecessor?

 

arcanum had a combat system that sucked in both RT and TB mode, yet it is hailed as one of the best RPG ever

A decent combat system would have vastly improved Arcanum.

i plead indifference on the combat system. it is not important and so i do not care which type they use. if you think the combat of a game like torment is so important that the type used (regrdless of how well or not it is made) will ruin the entire game, i think you are playing the wrong game

arcanum would certainly be a better game if combat was not so bad, however it was not the combat that made it what it was, and that is even more true for torment. personally, i would have preffered that torment had no combat at all (both the old and the new)

Many people have been repeatedly stating that the combat in Torment is not important. Fine. If it isn't important, then why must the game have turn-based combat? It could have used RTwP like the spiritual predecessor.

 

That's all i'm saying.

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

and about the contradictions, since combat is not the important part it doesnt really matter if it is TB or RT, so you cant just say "the game is ruined because of the combat system".

If it doesn't matter, because Torment isn't about combat, then why must it have turn-based combat and not RTwP combat like the spiritual predecessor?

 

arcanum had a combat system that sucked in both RT and TB mode, yet it is hailed as one of the best RPG ever

A decent combat system would have vastly improved Arcanum.

i plead indifference on the combat system. it is not important and so i do not care which type they use. if you think the combat of a game like torment is so important that the type used (regrdless of how well or not it is made) will ruin the entire game, i think you are playing the wrong game

arcanum would certainly be a better game if combat was not so bad, however it was not the combat that made it what it was, and that is even more true for torment. personally, i would have preffered that torment had no combat at all (both the old and the new)

Many people have been repeatedly stating that the combat in Torment is not important. Fine. If it isn't important, then why must the game have turn-based combat? It could have used RTwP like the spiritual predecessor.

 

That's all i'm saying.

 

ask the inxile guys. in a combat heavy game like BG, IWD, PE i like RTwP. in a game where combat is something that (depending on the design) may be completelly avoidable or  optional and is a small part of the game, the choice between RT and TB is of no consequence, unless you are a hardcore hater of one or the other system

[Gallenger]

inXhile made the right choice.  Their whole shtick is that combat will be fairly sparse in Tides. They can also integrate narrative elements more cleanly or stage fights out better with a turn based system.  Since it's a story based character driven game, it was a good, logical choice.  If combat was the deal breaker for you on that project you made a mistake funding it in the first place since there won't really be that much combat to be had.  Let us also be honest and say that the combat in torment was also the worst part of that game in general - so saying the original was Rtwp, let's get some more rtwp, doesn't really excite me much.  Having only a few epic battles with multiple text or cinematic interruptions, etc etc, that would be much more fitting. 

 

I imagine PE will be much closer to the non-Torment Black Isle titles and, as such, RTWP is the way to go, because the downside of TB combat only *really* presents itself when you have to use it a lot and encounter bunches of weak things to fight (I shudder at the thought of turn-based Nashkel mines). 

Edited December 16, 2013 by Gallenger

[Sensuki]

Why do you want to know with which difficulty setting I play games? With which difficulty setting do you play games?

Usually hardest. I am asking because I think there is a direct correlation between enjoyment of turn-based combat and the difficulty setting preference of the player.

 

You have to constantly be aware of every action that is going on in this room at any possible moment and react accordingly. Some people find this overwhelming.

You missed the point. Turn-based places higher stakes on individual choices. Once you've made a move in turn based, you cannot correct it, you cannot take it back. In RTWP if you make a tactical error you can correct it by pausing the game and re-issuing a different command. Individual actions in turn-based when difficult are very important, and you can only make a certain amount of wrong moves or you have to reload/you've lost. Realtime combat has a greater demand on the moment to moment decisions of the player and in some cases their reactivity. Pause trivializes this to some extent (depending on how far you abuse it).

 

Difficulty is often handled very well in turn-based combat, but it is often the opposite in RTwP, where difficulty equates to higher damage and hit points of enemies rather than better computer AI. In turn based games, AI often makes 'smarter' decisions.

 

Turn-based on easy is generally pretty bad because unless you are terrible, it offers little challenge and it does take longer than RTwP to resolve combat. Difficulty in RTwP sometimes is handled well, and is in fact really fun, but most of the time it just ends up being grindy and not overly demanding of tactics/strategy - especially in games with cooldown abilities.

[Helm]

 

 

Why do you want to know with which difficulty setting I play games? With which difficulty setting do you play games?

Usually hardest. I am asking because I think there is a direct correlation between enjoyment of turn-based combat and the difficulty setting preference of the player.

Yes, this is quite obvious. I asked because I want to hear your theory.

 

 

 

You have to constantly be aware of every action that is going on in this room at any possible moment and react accordingly. Some people find this overwhelming.

You missed the point. Turn-based places higher stakes on individual choices. Once you've made a move in turn based, you cannot correct it, you cannot take it back. In RTWP if you make a tactical error you can correct it by pausing the game and re-issuing a different command.

Individual actions in turn-based when difficult are very important, and you can only make a certain amount of wrong moves or you have to reload/you've lost. Realtime combat has a greater demand on the moment to moment decisions of the player and in some cases their reactivity. Pause trivializes this to some extent (depending on how far you abuse it).

That really isn't a point. Once you make a tactical decision in a RTwP game like Baldur's Gate you can't take it back either, there is no "undo move" button. For example, if you cast the wrong spell in BG, then you have to wait until the end of the round in order to cast a spell again. A lot can happen in this small amount if time and it can really hurt if it was an unwise tactical decision.

 

Seems to me that you are somehow trying to prove that turn-based combat is fundamentally more challenging. That is not the case. Both realtime with pause and turn-based combat can be challenging and both require a good understanding of tactics in general and the game's rules. RTwP however requires more skill, a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime (and pause to issue commands if required) and is therefore not the system of choice for the sluggish an inept. This does not mean that RTwP is harder than turn-based, both can be extremely challenging, RTwP just requires skills that are not as pronounced in some people.

 

Difficulty is often handled very well in turn-based combat, but it is often the opposite in RTwP, where difficulty equates to higher

damage and hit points of enemies rather than better computer AI. In turn based games, AI often makes 'smarter' decisions.

The quality of the AI scripting is based solely on the talent of the programmer(s) and not on the combat system. I do however believe that programming the AI for a turn-based game is simpler, seeing that the combat system is simpler in design (I do not mean less challenging).

 

Turn-based on easy is generally pretty bad because unless you are terrible, it offers little challenge and it does take longer than RTwP to resolve combat. Difficulty in RTwP sometimes is handled well, and is in fact really fun, but most of the time it just ends up being grindy and not overly demanding of tactics/strategy - especially in games with cooldown abilities.

Are you trying to say that RTwP on easy is less challenging than turn-based on easy?

 

And bad games will always be bad games, independant of the combat systems

[rjshae]

There was an old style of wargames that involved turn based combat in which the actions were plotted out in advance, then performed simultaneously. I'd argue that RtwP is just such a turn-based combat system that uses an AI helper function. It can run in real time because the AI is making most of the decisions for you. I almost think I'd like to have RtwP in combination with the ability to plot out specific movements for selected characters. If you want a character to circle around the battlefield, say, then you should be able to do so with a single pause, rather than having to micromanage every step. Then, when the movement is complete, I want the action to pause again so I can issue more orders.

[Sensuki]

Yes, this is quite obvious. I asked because I want to hear your theory.

Seems to me that you are somehow trying to prove that turn-based combat is fundamentally more challenging. That is not the case. RTwP however requires more skill

It is you who is trying to prove that RTwP takes more skill than turn-based - not the other way around.

 

Once you make a tactical decision in a RTwP game like Baldur's Gate you can't take it back either, there is no "undo move" button. For example, if you cast the wrong spell in BG, then you have to wait until the end of the round in order to cast a spell again

Actually yes you can. If you make a mistake and realize it - you have lost time. There is no way to take that back, but you can correct your actions with a certain efficacy loss, which you cannot do in turn-based. There is a difference. If you realize that you made a mistake in turn-based after you have issued a command, there is no way to undo your move. In real-time IF you realize that you made a mistake you can revert your actions. All actions (and discrete rounds) in the IE games can be interrupted by a move action, and because the game is round based, a lot of the time when you go to cast a spell you have the time to cancel the action, or pause and issue another one. The stakes of individual actions are not as high as turn-based.

 

a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime (and pause to issue commands if required) and is therefore not the system of choice for the sluggish an inept. This does not mean that RTwP is harder than turn-based, both can be extremely challenging, RTwP just requires skills that are not as pronounced in some people.

Most people have a reaction time of about 180-300ms. Realtime with pause is not a game that tests reactions like a first person shooter ... or perhaps an RTS game does - at least, no RTwP RPG game designed today. Action RPG - maybe, but not RTwP. Pause and auto-pause also trivialize this argument. In some games, there are so many auto pause conditions that the game 'pauses' more often than a turn-based game. The pause feature in RTwP can effectively be (and likely is) "abused" by anyone you call 'sluggish or inept' to their favor.

 

The other big difference between RTwP and TB combat is that in RTwP - actions happen simultaneously, you can react to 'currently happening' actions, such as if a Mage in BG2 begins casting a deadly spell with a long cast time, you can interrupt that cast with an Archer, and try and cause spell failure. In a turn based system, one unit moves at a time - there are different types of turns in TB though - team turns and individual unit turns. In either case, you do not know what the opponents are going to do, you cannot interrupt their actions (they also cannot interrupt yours). Pause in RTwP allows you to pause the game time and issue commands - the AI cannot do that, effectively giving you an advantage. AI can only react to certain conditions.

 

AI for turn-based combat is simpler because it does not require real-time reactions to actions - so it is easier to provide a more effective AI, whereas for RTwP it does and the levels of AI are not very sophisticated at present.

 

I will not say that there are not people who do not like RTwP because they find it somewhat stressful by nature, but there are also a lot of people who think that there is yet to be a good RTwP system - or that RTwP encourages filler combat. Remember, that I enjoy RTwP systems - it is you who is trying to discredit turn-based as a system. Not the other way around.

 

It is hard to say whether easy turn based combat is easier than easy RTwP combat. I would classify easy turn based combat to require almost no deliberation of actions, and that if you just attack and if you can't attack, then move closer is a failure of a turn-based system to be even remotely difficult.

 

Easy real-time with pause is essentially you clicking to attack ... doing little to nothing else and maybe using a couple of abilities and potions. Both require little effort.

 

You have also not stated your preference for difficulty.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Sensuki

[Darkpriest]

ToEE used turn-based combat... which didn't seem at all boring. Ah well, the MTV generation has been indoctrinated differently.

 actually TB in ToEE wasn't that good... it was complex, but in a bad way.

[Sensuki]

ToEE is the best implementation of D&D combat in a game. Followed by Knights of the Chalice. It's definitely not 'bad'.

 

Though I admit I am not well versed in Gold Box.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Sensuki

[Darkpriest]

ToEE is the best implementation of D&D combat in a game. Followed by Knights of the Chalice. It's definitely not 'bad'.

 

Though I admit I am not well versed in Gold Box.

 

it's not bad, it's tedious and too much complexity was ported on the SP computer game from a PnP experience where you spend time with friends. Computer game, should not be that tedious. It's something that Firaxis grasped well with their XCOM and TB combat

[PrimeJunta]

@Darkpriest, which party-based high-fantasy cRPG does turn-based combat better than ToEE, in your opinion?

[Helm]

 

 

Yes, this is quite obvious. I asked because I want to hear your theory.

Seems to me that you are somehow trying to prove that turn-based combat is fundamentally more challenging. That is not the case. RTwP however requires more skill

It is you who is trying to prove that RTwP takes more skill than turn-based - not the other way around.

Both systems can be extremely challenging, RTwP does require more skill though.

 

I would still like to hear your theory on the "direct correlation between enjoyment of turn-based combat and the difficulty setting preference of the player". I have already asked you three times.

 

Actually yes you can. If you make a mistake and realize it - you have lost time. There is no way to take that back, but you can correct your actions with a certain efficacy loss, which you cannot do in turn-based. There is a difference. If you realize that you made a mistake in turn-based after you have issued a command, there is no way to undo your move. In real-time IF you realize that you made a mistake you can revert your actions. All actions (and discrete rounds) in the IE games can be interrupted by a move action, and because the game is round based, a lot of the time when you go to cast a spell you have the time to cancel the action, or pause and issue another one. The stakes of individual actions are not as high as turn-based.

If I make a simple mistake, e.g. I accidentally order my character to move in the false direction, and immediatly notice this mistake, then I can correct it rather easily (and hopefully also with minimal consequences). This is true. Another reason why RTwP is so great, good that you pointed this out.

 

This is not always true though, even a simple wrong movement can cause you to loose an entire round, because your character has reached his goal a bit later than planned. If you start casting a spell and decide to cancel for some reason, then your character looses the entire round, it can't be corrected. The stakes of individual actions are also very high in RTwP games like BG, having a character loose an entire round can really hurt. Loosing a round means that 6 seconds of gameplay are practically lost because your character can't really do anything other than run around and possibly dodge AoE spells.

Canceling spells or actions or issuing new movement commands is not only possible in a RTwP game but often times also required. This of course complicates combat. Like I wrote, RTwP requires more skill, a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime. In a turn based game, you just issue commands in order (of course with a basic tactic in mind) and that is basically it. Turn based is essentially a rather simple sytem.

 

Most people have a reaction time of about 180-300ms. Realtime with pause is not a game that tests reactions like a first person shooter ... or perhaps an RTS game does - at least, no RTwP RPG game designed today. Action RPG - maybe, but not RTwP. Pause and auto-pause also trivialize this argument. In some games, there are so many auto pause conditions that the game 'pauses' more often than a turn-based game. The pause feature in RTwP can effectively be (and likely is) "abused" by anyone you call 'sluggish or inept' to their favor.

More actions are required in a RTwP game, the combat is more complicated. Not necessarily more challenging, just more complicated and faster paced. Constantly hitting the spacebar to pause the game does not make a RTwP game any less complicated anyway. Some people just find RTwP combat confusing, that's the way it is. Some people will just never like turn-based combat.

 

And yes, the sluggish and inept can and will abuse the space bar if they play a RTwP games. Anyway, I don't understand how you think they can enjoy a RTwP game as much as a turn-based game. In a turn-based game they have all the time in the world to think out every single action and don't have to constantly hit the spacebar either.

 

I will not say that there are not people who do not like RTwP because they find it somewhat stressful by nature, but there are also a lot of people who think that there is yet to be a good RTwP system - or that RTwP encourages filler combat. Remember, that I enjoy RTwP systems - it is you who is trying to discredit turn-based as a system. Not the other way around.

I am not discrediting turn-based combat, I have not said that turn-based games are crap. You seem to want to believe this though for some reason, it's like you think I am an extremely evil RTwP fan who absolutely hates the turn-based "master race". lol

 

I only stated that the sluggish and inept just might have a problem with RTwP, that is why they bitch and whine that it is so bad........... And here we are.

 

You have also not stated your preference for difficulty.

Hard. And then I hope that the game will be challenging. Edited December 16, 2013 by Helm

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Like I wrote, RTwP requires more skill, a player has to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime.

 

 

And yes, the sluggish and inept can and will abuse the space bar if they play a RTwP games. 

 

 

I dunno, I've always considered myself rather sluggish and inept, but I've never felt that the "need to constantly be aware of every current and potential action and react accordingly in realtime" overwhelmed me anytime. Oh wait, that's because you don't need to react in realtime - that's what the pause button is for. (Also, "being constantly aware of every current and potential action" is a rather lofty term considering that it usually entails "monitoring the health of melee combatants who kind of do their stuff without the need for constant supervision, occasionally ordering the healer to get them out of trouble, and choosing between the about 4 spells of the wizard that are usually viable in a given situation" - in the IE games, you didn't even need to micromanage your rogues, because they were useless in combat anyway, so the only thing they could do was occasionally shooting a few arrows. Yes, I know, backstab, but I ended up almost never using it - invisibility potions are expensive, backstab often misses, and even if it does hit, it can't down an enemy on its own - and the fragile rogues get skewered on their own in basically any kind of combat that involves the enemy hitting back.)

 

Abuse means "the improper use of something" - pausing was specifically implemented to allow the players to issue commands and assess the battlefield without the pressure of time. Which is what it is used for. I really don't see the "ab" part.

[Darkpriest]

@Darkpriest, which party-based high-fantasy cRPG does turn-based combat better than ToEE, in your opinion?

 

The problem is, I do not like any TB combat I tried in high fantasy so far. Best TB combat in a cRPG is for me by far Fallout. Simple, yet still requiring tactical placement. I would say that Age of Decadence has a decent TB combat as well, although it's not a party based game Arcanum TB was abysmally bad for me. ToEE while capturing the rules well, it just felt too tedious for a computer game.

[Mor]

The main difference between turns and pauses, so brilliantly illustrated by XCOM, is that when your turn is over, someone else’s turn starts, and if you didn’t prepare for that, well, mostly likely you are dead and it’s “game over” for you. In RT it’s perfectly acceptable to run toward a door, open it, hit pause, review the situation, pick targets and start kicking ass in an unbelievable but visually pleasing fashion. In XCOM if you open a door when your turn ends, and a hostile character is in the room, you are dead. What you may see as a flaw is actually a quick test of your tactics employed during your turn. If you fail, your character dies. You need to carefully plan your actions and then you’ll have a chance to beat games like XCOM or Jagged Alliance.

I find it amusing that among the two you choose to describe real time as unbelievable  

 

The main difference between turns and RT, is that with turns instead of everyone actions being processed simultaneously, everyone has a magical time stop during which they have a freedom to act as they wish. So instead of tactical planing, where you have to react/counter your opponents move/actions(e.g. cause Mage who started to cast a spell to miscast) Turn base replace tactics with much more easily quantifiable problem of counting actions points, where its much much easier to game the system with couple of standard moves. In TB it's perfectly acceptable to have one guy open the door and draw the fire, another run through run toward the enemy and dance around him, another to draw a troll face in front of him, while the last go and taser his balls.

 

Turns adds a sense of control, make combat seem more orderly and blur AI lack of strategic awareness. It adds a (fake) tactical layer to games where combat is important but you don't have a good combat system, and works well for games with crazy setups where you need to go anal. It also tend to annoy people who don't care for combat and see it as filler between plot and dialogue an prefer to play on very easy.

[Sensuki]

It's something that Firaxis grasped well with their XCOM and TB combat

 

That's about all I have to say to that comment.

[Sensuki]

I find it amusing that among the two you choose to describe real time as unbelievable

That is not my quote. If you were intending to quote something I said, do a better job of it next time.

 

The main difference between turns and RT, is that with turns instead of everyone actions being processed simultaneously, everyone has a magical time stop during which they have a freedom to act as they wish.

My discussion is about turn-based vs Real-time WITH PAUSE. Not about real-time. Are you saying that a pause is any different from the magical time stop that you describe?

 

Every farking thread you misread what I say. Go level up in reading comprehension skills.

 

 

It adds a (fake) tactical layer to games where combat is important but you don't have a good combat system, and works well for games with crazy setups where you need to go anal

 

Oh really? Because there's plenty of turn-based games that have good combat systems. To be honest you should go and find some real-time only RPGs to use examples with. If you can find some.

 

Some turn-based games don't use action points.

 

 

It also tend to annoy people who don't care for combat and see it as filler between plot and dialogue an prefer to play on very easy.

 

If you read my posts, you'd see I already demonstrated that. Also exact words I used in a post in the Kickstarter comments.

 

You mustn't like turn-based.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Sensuki

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm just going to say I'm glad PoE uses RtwP, and glad I didn't back Planescape.

We'll see later if Torment can make a good impression besides using turnbased, but for now, I really don't mind letting it slip to the back of my head and forgetting all about it till it's on a Steamsale or something...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In all honesty, I don't give a **** whether a game is TB or RTwP as long as the gameplay is fun.

[Mor]

 

The main difference between turns and RT, is that with turns instead of everyone actions being processed simultaneously, everyone has a magical time stop during which they have a freedom to act as they wish.

My discussion is about turn-based vs Real-time WITH PAUSE. Not about real-time. Are you saying that a pause is any different from the magical time stop that you describe?

 

Ofcourse it is different. Pausing or slowing the game gives you better control of the situation, however, it doesn't change the nature of the game, everyone orders are still going to be processed simultaneously.. unlike TURN base, where every player get a TURN during which only he can act.(minus reaction fire)