Severian Silk
Guest
I've written an article on Wikipedia about real-time vs. turn-based gameplay, and was wondering if you would help contributing to it.
Real-time (action) games are intense (for a lack of a better term). Turn base game is a leisure activity.
go play some incubation.Koby said:Real-time (action) games are intense (for a lack of a better term). Turn base game is a leisure activity. Two different kind of things to begin with! You are not comparing apples to apples here.
Arguments in favor of real-time systems include:
Thinking quickly is part of the strategy[1], and sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring[1].
Real-time systems are fair; just because there's an added element of challenge doesn't mean they're less fair.[1]
Real-time systems are more realistic; turn-based systems originally existed out of necessity, not due to any added elements of realism.
It just occurred to me that exchange chess is pretty much like this - yet it's rarely raised as a counter to any "Real time chess??? QED" type arguments.Zomg said:Like, for example, in an RTS chess...
Squeek said:You should probably mention that debate between the two is divisive as hell. It's gone beyond debate, honestly. It's become more like arguing about religion.
galsiah said:It just occurred to me that exchange chess is pretty much like this - yet it's rarely raised as a counter to any "Real time chess??? QED" type arguments.Zomg said:Like, for example, in an RTS chess...
Exchange chess is 2v2 played on two boards with each team taking one white and one black side. Any taken piece is given to your team-mate, and can be placed on his board as a standard move (in any position that doesn't put his opponent in check). It's fairly obvious from this that a great strategy would be to gain a temporary material advantage, pass it to your team-mate, then stop playing on your board - allowing your opponent to use the advantage for many moves on his board.
To avoid this, players are often limited to ten seconds per move - with their opponent getting to remove one of their pawns from the board for each ten seconds taken.
In this situation, one of the greatest weapons is in flustering your opponent by making him spend too much of his thinking on one small area - then beating him on the rest of the board. For example, any hole created on the seventh rank can be used to lodge a pawn. This can create problems, and panic, in an opponent, since it's hard to dislodge such a pawn without significant loss of time and/or material.
Naturally it's still not fully real time in most senses, but it's certainly an entertaining game. It's changed, rather than ruined.
In general, it's pretty clear that both TB and real time combat can be done well. Which works best in a given context is going to depend on that context.
Koby said:... intense...
Yes, but that's simply because it wasn't a particularly interesting TB implementation rather than the fact that it was TB in itself. Fallout’s maps were not well designed for tactical decision making and the action points system was too stingy to allow compound actions. In Silent Storm soldiers can raise themselves out of cover, shoot and duck back into cover in a single turn; I don’t recall anything like that in Fallout. Perhaps if the Vault Dweller had major AP boosting stats it was possible…Suchy said:imo Fallout TB sucked big time. Single unit in control, complete lack of any tactic... Shoot, get shot, use stimpack, repeat.
Indeed. but then a rigid limit on reaction time is imposed. Not exactly accounting for countless factors that have bearing on reaction time.Mayday said:There is a possibility of a time constrained TB gameplay, DraQ (see- Incubation or Worms, lol)
I expected that charge to come more to the forefront of the discussion. Alas, it wasn't; the thread is rather one-sided.But that thread raises a question: what's more ridiculous? A forum obsessed with an old but excellent RPG or a forum obsessed with a forum that's obsessed with an old but excellent RPG?
I finished Baldur's Gate 2 and I still don't know how it works.Assnuggets said:I have a question. I haven't played any of the Infinity Engine games. Do all the characters' "turns" begin and end at the same time, or do they tend to go out of phase with each other (possibly due to their being dependant on the [edit: varied] time required to complete the action)?