Turn based combat is considered better... Why?

[Radisshu]

Neither is inherently better than the other. TB can have shitty mechanics, as can RT. In the same vein, there can be great TB, and there can be great RT.

Yeah, but TB is still more fitting in an RPG

 

[Cynic]

The idea of a game, and I mean ANY game, not just modern ones, being turn based is a timeless concept. Games such as chess, checkers, various card games, these are all turn based. Why? Because the concept of turns gives rise to taking time for strategic thinking, thereby making the game more focused on tactics and of course the skill of the player. Even sports have their roots in being turn based, tennis for example gives service in turns, cricket/baseball have sides taking turns in batting/pitching etc.,

It's an interesting comparison actually. When you think of sports, we have almost fully real time games such as soccer, rugby, basketball etc., while also have turn based games such as baseball and cricket. Which do you like more? I've just thought about this now, but I definitely enjoy turn based sports more than real time (except Soccer, which while I don't follow religiously or anything, I find it much better to watch than rugby).

Real time games by their very nature are focused on immediacy and motor skills. The same can be seen in good action based video games. In my opinion, the Japanese have this genre hands down and almost solely this rests on the shoulders of Capcom. With their history in making brilliant real time fighting games, they've been able to expand into other action genres and produced some amazing real time action systems. Devil May Cry & Onimusha are good examples, and I think Dragon's Dogma also looks pretty cool.

When it comes to role playing games, all computer role playing games were born out of D&D, which of course is turn based for obvious reasons. I think the Codex rightly prefers turn based role playing games because frankly, party based mechanics, which are geared towards forming strategies using each member to win, begin to fall apart when everything is real time. The infinity engine games managed this with the use of a pause button, this was basically some kind of emulated turn based system. It worked okay, it was fun in many ways but it did change the game play significantly. You couldn't waste time in the middle of a fight casting the right buff at the right time because well, you didn't have any time. You had to prebuff, constantly, and this of course gave rise to crap things like rest spamming etc., In essence, it broke D&D, and while still being fun in some ways, it was broken.

SO tl;dr I think turn based systems are best for party based RPGs. It's very sad that current western developers can't see the value in this. Japan is still creating some great turn based games, and they sell a crapload as well. Devil Survivor was a really good game, had solid C&C, multiple endings etc., imo the DS had some of the best games on it in the past 5 years. The final fantasy tactics advanced games were childish and cartoony, but the combat was still fun.

Every AAA western developer seems hell bent on saying that turn based is like some kind of archaic outdated system. Then why do Japanese developers still make a lot of money from turn based games? Why do people still play cards, chess, scrabble etc.,? Words with friends is probably the biggest iPhone/Facebook game at the moment, and of course it is entirely turn based.

When I heard the DA2 developers trashing combat in DA1 and saying that "it was like chess" as something bad, I was really confused. Game developers should only DREAM of making a game as good as chess which has survived centuries, unchanged, and remains one of the most popular games in the world today. My guess is that anyone who says something like this is too fucking dumb to actually realize this, and of course could never make a game of any merit, whatsoever.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

When I heard the DA2 developers trashing combat in DA1 and saying that "it was like chess" as something bad, I was really confused.

well bro when the ancients designed chess it was the only option they had with their level of technology

when what they really wanted to simulate was visceral real time combat in first person view, the likes of which we can find in every successful modern rpg product

move on from the limited and unrealistic third person view of chess my friends

 

[Cynic]

when what they really wanted to simulate was visceral real time combat in first person view, the likes of which we can find in every successful modern rpg product

 

[Exmit]

Active combat with pause is also ok - see infinity engine games

 

[Cynic]

Active combat with pause is also ok - see infinity engine games

I addressed this above. It is "okay" but it gives rise to a number of bullshit exploits. I did enjoy the IE games though, make no mistake.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Sometimes the exploits can be limited by not allowing access to inventory for things like changing armour in mid combat or even drinking potions.

Casting of spells can be queued while paused, and when you resume combat it still takes some time to cast the spell(s) which in turn can be interrupted/countered by the enemy.

RT combat has usually less well designed encounters and lends itself for filler combat and mob encounters a la action rpg's.

So yeah I for one enjoy RTwP the most, provided it's implemented well.

 

[Shannow]

And I consider RTwP the retarded get of RT and TB. It has all of the weaknesses and few of the strengths

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

If it's not turn-based, it is an action game as execution takes room from strategy, and if it's an action game then it fucking better be solid as a diamond, blood-pumping fast-paced perfect controls game, otherwise it compares very unfavorably to a few generations of classic action games that didn't have RPG elements messing up the formula and then it feels like shit.

Of course, there's no guarantee that your turn-based game doesn't compare unfavourably to a few generations of classic games, either... You still have to make it good, but I think the various RPG elements fit to turn-based much more naturally, and the comparison would probably be only to strategy and RPG games, not roughly everything ever made.

 

[deus101]

Active combat with pause is also ok - see infinity engine games

I addressed this above. It is "okay" but it gives rise to a number of bullshit exploits. I did enjoy the IE games though, make no mistake.

But i wonder, couldnt it be possible to make the realtime tied onto rigorous turn mechanics, you did have to rely on turns for x attacks and cast time.


If you managed to time initiative and movement to the same principles.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

If it's not turn-based, it is an action game as execution takes room from strategy, and if it's an action game then it fucking better be solid as a diamond, blood-pumping fast-paced perfect controls game, otherwise it compares very unfavorably to a few generations of classic action games that didn't have RPG elements messing up the formula and then it feels like shit.

Of course, there's no guarantee that your turn-based game doesn't compare unfavourably to a few generations of classic games, either... You still have to make it good, but I think the various RPG elements fit to turn-based much more naturally, and the comparison would probably be only to strategy and RPG games, not roughly everything ever made.

Maybe my opinion has changed due to paradox, but why not make a rt rpg with adjustable speed and a slower, more tactical friendly pace?

 

[Cynic]

Why bother? Why do you need RT at all? What benefit foes it have over TB for party based games? Honestly I just don't see it.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Situations can be more dynamic. You could have to reevaluate tactcs on the fly. It can add a sense of urgency and could allow for different, advanced tactical options, like delaying maneuvers and well executed flanking attacks. These aren't necessarily unique to rt, but more quality gameplay options is never a bad thing.

 

[Regdar]

The only thing unique to RT is running away while you spam healing pots on yourself and kiting enemies with ranged weapons and spells.

Neither is inherently better than the other. TB can have shitty mechanics, as can RT. In the same vein, there can be great TB, and there can be great RT.

Clicking LMB as fast as you can to kill an enemy is not considered "great" by people who have taste, or those who wish to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

With that in mind, please name some great RT CRPG games.

 

[Bluebottle]

Neither is inherently better than the other. TB can have shitty mechanics, as can RT. In the same vein, there can be great TB, and there can be great RT.

Clicking LMB as fast as you can to kill an enemy is not considered "great" by people who have taste, or those who wish to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

With that in mind, please name some great RT CRPG games.

None spring readily to mind with decent combat, but there are decent RT crpgs (Ultima VII is great, despite having shitty, shitty combat). On more general terms though, I think there can be decent RT combat, it just doesn't suit small numbers all that well and, as such, tends to make pretty shitty rpg combat. It works on a grand scale though (Shadow of the Horned Rat, Dark Omen and the TW games), where unit movement tends to be a bit more ponderous.

That kind of highlights my main issue with RT crpg combat, even those with active pause. It makes the positional tactics less a part of the equation, as they simply boil down to having the right people attacking the right enemies. In ToEE I'd spend a lot of time screening flanks and ensuring my magic users were protected, in DA this simply boiled down to hitting the rage abilities and kiting you fighter like a massive fucking pussy.

In short, I think a good RT game is possible, but you'd have to tone down the movement speeds in combat (which would make sense considering the masses of armour most combatants tend to wear), and giving the party members the ability to tie up enemies in order to protect flanks or vulerable casters/ranged characters.

 

[Relay]

Neither is inherently better than the other. TB can have shitty mechanics, as can RT. In the same vein, there can be great TB, and there can be great RT.

RT can never offer what TB offers in the same way that there will never be such a thing as real time poker. cRPG originally had roots and inspiration from p&p rulesets and you don't play those in real time. RT games aren't that different from non-RPG games in the tactical sense. There is a lot of difference between only getting opportunity attacks while doing an action in a TB game and getting constantly spammed from everywhere in RT games and things like initiative make less sense in RT or RTWP based games.

Also, the AI can be a bit more proficient in TB games because there's less room to exploit its stupidity, the worst offenders are the first person games. In oblivion you can avoid plenty of attacks just by running in circles around your opponent. Be it Oblivion or even New Vegas, it's all about your own (player) movements : dodging, running, hiding than anything else, and New Vegas feels like a real first person shooter as soon as you get a bit more skills points in your favorite weapon. Non-shoot or hack'n'slash mechanics are a bit better but still far from the awesomeness of TB.

Naturally the only strong point of RT games can be found in their storyfaggotry and larping aspects. If you don't put a priority on storyfaggotry, those games are boring as hell. When RT games don't even have storyfaggotry as a good aspect, they're what we call diablo likes and it's all about click click click click click click mouse click click click click. Diablo is a game for adhd riddled people.

None spring readily to mind with decent combat, but there are decent RT crpgs (Ultima VII is great, despite having shitty, shitty combat).

Basically, Ultima VII is good for a visual novel.

 

[sea]

Turn-based combat is better because I can always get up mid-turn, go to the bathroom, have a snack, watch a movie, and then come back and pick things up right where I left off.

 

[Roguey]

@sea - I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not but you can do that with any real time game just by pausing.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Basically, Ultima VII is good for a visual novel.

IT IS THE MOST ADVANCED VISUAL NOVEL EVER SIR AND IT A FACT

honestly bro I think U7 would have been good for more sequels once they did SOMETHING with that spastic combat

yes in a perfect world the exult team announces they have created a construction toolset with that engine so that true bros can make more 2d interesting place exploration and party equipment management simulators

add gold sinks and the ability to sell most of the shit you can nick and awesomeness

 

[sea]

@sea - I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not but you can do that with any real time game just by pausing.

I guess the point I was (facetiously) trying to make is that turn-based is to some degree preferable because it lets you play the game at your own pace - you have time to plan, to think, to act, and the game has a predictable set of mechanics you can operate using to manipulate the outcome of a situation. While real-time games can capture aspects of this, such as predictable mechanics and planning, there are always going to be cases where things happen beyond your control, either because the controls suddenly decided to become unresponsive, or because the game pulled a fast one on you and didn't give you time to respond, or because it simply decided to change the rules in a given scenario without telling you. I don't really prefer one system over the other, I just think that turn-based ones give you more precision, control, and require you to think things through rather than acting on impulse and reflexes, and that's better suited to the complex mechanics most RPGs have.

 

[Serious_Business]

Naturally the only strong point of RT games can be found in their storyfaggotry and larping aspects. If you don't put a priority on storyfaggotry, those games are boring as hell. When RT games don't even have storyfaggotry as a good aspect, they're what we call diablo likes and it's all about click click click click click click mouse click click click click. Diablo is a game for adhd riddled people.

Here's a trick question for you. How do you do turned-based stealth play? It would be doable, of course, but how would it be superior to FP RT stealth gameplay (Thief)? It wouldn't.

I think your little system doesn't work as well as you think it does

 

[Mastermind]

The idea of a game, and I mean ANY game, not just modern ones, being turn based is a timeless concept. Games such as chess, checkers, various card games, these are all turn based. Why? Because the concept of turns gives rise to taking time for strategic thinking, thereby making the game more focused on tactics and of course the skill of the player.real time chess would be really fucking stupid.

Fixed.

 

[Mastermind]

Clicking LMB as fast as you can to kill an enemy is not considered "great" by people who have taste, or those who wish to avoid carpal tunnel syndrome.

With that in mind, please name some great RT CRPG games.

In terms of tactical combat Guild Wars is superior to every piece of shit TBS rpg hybrid ever produced. Just comparing its tactical depth to something like Fallout has me in stitches. Good luck clicking LMB as fast as you can. Actually, I can't really think of any action RPGs where "clicking LMB as fast as you can" is the optimal style of play, though it's passable in some due to your beefed up character just like fallout combat becomes pure popamole once you have power armor and a decent weapon/

 

[quasimodo]

TB allows me to control everything my party does. During my opponents turn I can see and analyze all actions, plan responses and be ready for my turn so as to achieve a nice rhythm.

RTwP is spastic shit.

RT is worse.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Naturally the only strong point of RT games can be found in their storyfaggotry and larping aspects. If you don't put a priority on storyfaggotry, those games are boring as hell. When RT games don't even have storyfaggotry as a good aspect, they're what we call diablo likes and it's all about click click click click click click mouse click click click click. Diablo is a game for adhd riddled people.

Here's a trick question for you. How do you do turned-based stealth play? It would be doable, of course, but how would it be superior to FP RT stealth gameplay (Thief)? It wouldn't.

I think your little system doesn't work as well as you think it does

Easy, you roll hide and move silently checks, the opponent(s) rolls spot and listen checks.

Forced stealth levels are almost universally awful unless the game is primarily designed for stealth gameplay. Forced stealth levels are one of the most hated gimmicks in game design.

Thief does have some nice stealth gameplay, but Thief is a stealth action game, not a RPG.