Help on expanding an article on RT vs. TB gameplay

[Severian Silk]

I've written an article on Wikipedia about real-time vs. turn-based gameplay, and was wondering if you would help contributing to it.

 

[Koby]

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.

 

[Nedrah]

Real-time (action) games are intense (for a lack of a better term). Turn base game is a leisure activity.

Made me laugh. Decent execution, not too much effort - 7/10.

 

[SuicideBunny]

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.

go play some incubation.

 

[Human Shield]

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].

Bullshit. Thinking quickly is reactive thinking and waiting on turns is only because of old games or poor design. Turn-based can be faster because it only has to stop to get player commands, real-time has to be panned out to give reaction time.

Real-time systems are fair; just because there's an added element of challenge doesn't mean they're less fair.[1]

BS, the goal of RTS is to get as many units as possible not acting stupid. TB lets you micromanage every unit and focus on strategy.

Real-time systems are more realistic; turn-based systems originally existed out of necessity, not due to any added elements of realism.

Bullshit again. They didn't exist out of necessity and will always be able to give the player more variables to think about because the player isn't timed.

But good luck out-editing the "real-time is next-gen" crowd.

 

[Zomg]

One thing that's neat about tactical or strategic thinking in real time is that you have to ration the amount of thought you give things, and in that rationing a lot of structure can arise. Like, for example, in an RTS chess, you might know the basic features of a pawn structure on one side or the other, giving you many heuristic shortcuts (a form of skill). Your opponent might then counter your heuristic shortcuts with an unorthodox movement that confuses you and disrupts your rationing patterns, whereas if you were playing chess by mail or something that type of meta-strategy might not get any traction. I think that's all quite interesting.

 

[Squeek]

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.

RT provides players with another opportunity to try their best, and some players like that. It's also more realistic from a simulation standpoint. And it eliminates the flaw in TB where you always have forever to make a decision.

TB is best for tactical decision making and doesn't require any arcade-game skill on the part of the player. It's beloved for it.

Myself, I'd prefer a game with a mix of both as occasional alternatives to something even better. Ideally, I'd like to direct my character instead of controlling him. My computer should control him, in accordance with my directions and my characters' abilities and limitations.

 

[galsiah]

Like, for example, in an RTS chess...

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.

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.

 

[Severian Silk]

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.

I'm having trouble finding articles which discuss this as being an actual debate. I've found a couple of articles that mention it off-hand, but no details.

Like, for example, in an RTS chess...

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.

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.

I wasn't able to incorporate this into the RT vs TB article. However, I adapted (read: plagarised) your comments for the turn-based game article. I hope you don't mind.

 

[Xi]

... intense...

Visceral?

Edit: Honestly, I believe that Action is a form of instant gratification. It's less controllable, and in the heat of the moment instant reaction creates far less strategy and simply produces gratification. It's fun right now!

In a Turn-Based game, it takes time and much effort until you finally experience the gratifying fruits of your hard labor. This is a higher pleasure because it really does require more strategy and work. Action is a lower pleasure because it relies on a simple on-the-fly reactionary system.

It's an age old debate that's landed itself into the nerdom. Turn-Based is an Intelligent higher pleasure comparable to the scholarly work of philosophers of ancient times. Action is akin to the athletic, what's generally considered lower, pleasure of gauging a persons direct instant influence on a situation. It's less to do with thinking and more to do with reaction and instant gratification. Real-time is like a physical pleasure in this sense. It lacks the substance and depth of an intelligent pleasure, like Turn-Based, because it lacks the strategy of such a game. Or at least, it doesn't have it in a comparable amount of depth.

The point of higher and lower pleasures being that higher pleasures are ultimately more rewarding in that the investment of time required equals are far more durable lasting result. You won't remember your instant action, it'll be a quick fading memory, but you will remember your difficult strategic turn-based struggle to over come a difficult encounter. It will be a lasting memory that you will remember forever.(Well, for longer anyway. ;P )

 

[SkeleTony]

Both have what their adherents would call "advantages" and their deterrents would call "suckiness". One 'advantage' of real-time is, as Xi pointed out above, that it rewards players for THEIR reflexes and possibly quick-thinking(though not on the scale of thinking that goes on in turn-based games). One advantage of turn-based gaming is that it is superior for simulation and is in many ways more realistic. In real life ten soldiers would not have to wait in turn for someone to 'click' on them before they took action. TB is more suited for those of us whose reflexes are shot but whose brains still work(and for whom patience is a virtue).

 

[Norfleet]

Real-time works better when you're controlling a small number of discrete units which have relatively limited distinct action sets. Turn-based works better when you have a multitude of units with a varied set of distinct actions. For instance, in a game like DOOM, you have only a single unit, your Space Marine, and he has only a very limited set of actions: Moving, shooting. There are a fair level of nuances between them, but really only two action sets, and giving the player direct control of those actions does not overwhelm the interface. Thus, it works well: Turn-based DOOM would be skull-crushingly boring and slow. Compare to say, X-Com, where one controls a good-sized squad of soldiers with a variety of distinct actions: Movement, management of item inventory, use of items and weapons, psi powers, etc. This would not work as well in real-time, as the player would end up battling the interface just to implement his decisions. The various nuances of the actions would be lost in the chaos of fussing with the interface and you'd get the less satisfactory real-time X-Com Apoc: Control is lost. Rather than the player being able to effectively implement his choices, he instead winds up fighting with the user interface or having to turn the units under his control over to the AI, which is purpose-defeating (not to mention a fundamental conflict of interest!). Which one is better simply depends on what gives the player better control of a playable game experience.

 

[Suchy]

Everything depends on how the TP/RT system is implemented. Armed Assault - real time tactical combat, where you can control multiple units. Easily done by issuing radio orders (quite detailed, including stance, etc.). Two Worlds , real time boring clickfest with a single unit in control.

Jagged Alliance 2, turn based tactical combat - best TB implementation I've seen in a game. And Fallout - now you're gonna flame the shit outta my ass, but imo Fallout TB sucked big time. Single unit in control, complete lack of any tactic... Shoot, get shot, use stimpack, repeat.

You can't just say that RT is bad coz it's mindless action, or that TB is bad coz it's slow and boring. TB and RT (and we can throw here RTwP as well) are completely different systems which can be implemented well or suck a lot. Whether someone like's one or the other is only a matter of personal preference.

 

[Norfleet]

And it all boils down to whether it adds to, or detracts from, your ability to play the game smoothly and efficiently. But yeah, Fallout TB could have been better...but real-time Fallout would have similarly been an abomination.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

imo Fallout TB sucked big time. Single unit in control, complete lack of any tactic... Shoot, get shot, use stimpack, repeat.

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…

 

[Norfleet]

It's not really a meaningful concept in Fallout. There's only two kinds of hits in Fallout: "You are hit for like 3 points of damage, feel the pain", and "you are hit for 14534 points of damage". Not a whole lot in between. That which does not kill you simply costs you a few of your 80-hojillion stimpacks.

 

[Severian Silk]

I added a new section, titled "The response by game designers". What do you think?

Note, also, that the last pro-RT point was added by another (anonymous) user. I'm not sure it's written well (though it is well-sourced).

 

[DraQ]

TB:

+ better separation of player's and character's skill

+Allows for better abstraction of time, which is handy for games playing over extreme time spans

- discretization of time which leads to somewhat artificial mechanics

+/- removal of decision speed as decisive factor can allow for better focus on tactics and more complex mechanics, it also alleviates cumbersome interface syndrome.

RT:

- worse separation of Player's and Character's skill

+ continuous gameplay allowing for potentially more realistic mechanics

+makes time more quantifable, allowing for precise timing and is handy for ations taking extremely short time spans

+/- Factors decision time in, though sometimes at expense of complexity, which is, of course, bad.

 

[Mayday]

There is a possibility of a time constrained TB gameplay, DraQ (see- Incubation or Worms, lol)

 

[DraQ]

There is a possibility of a time constrained TB gameplay, DraQ (see- Incubation or Worms, lol)

Indeed. but then a rigid limit on reaction time is imposed. Not exactly accounting for countless factors that have bearing on reaction time.

Besically, TB mechanics needs to find the best compromise between short and long turns. RT, on the other hand usually requires player to have at least average reflexes and forces him to twitch-game at least to an extent, even if he just wants to play an RPG or strategy game.

 

[Severian Silk]

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)?

 

[Amasius]

I like how Wiki-Mikail of all things asked the kind folks at the Quarter To Three forums to write the NMA Wiki article. With very predictable results. More ass than nugget, our little wannabe troll, but poor Briosafreak fights a hopeless fight for the good cause.

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?

 

[Severian Silk]

Well, I didn't find it that predictable.

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 expected that charge to come more to the forefront of the discussion. Alas, it wasn't; the thread is rather one-sided.

 

[Niektory]

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)?

I finished Baldur's Gate 2 and I still don't know how it works.

 

[Keldorn]

Real time with pause is the rational 3rd alternative for RPG's, transcending the polarized argument from the extremes.


Keldorn has found balance, happiness, harmony and longevity in the middle. And I like it like that.