This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What do hardcore RPG gamers have against RTwAP gameplay?

#21Lonestar2000Posted 2/16/2014 11:34:02 AM
Turned-based games are boring as f***.
---
Rumble Roses. Someone enters the room.
Them: O_O Me: What?! I always play games without my pants on!- Inmate 922335
#22jake-sfPosted 2/16/2014 11:41:59 AM
I don't agree, plain and simple. It works just fine. This dumb exaggerations proves nothing except your obvious dislike. Ridiculous micro-management is pretty much never necessary, and the real time with pause element just gives you more options instead of less, and thats it, period. Most of which you don't have to concern yourself -that- heavily with.

Baldur's Gate lacks in features as an old game that could make it easier to handle (chaining of commands, for starters).

I really don't see it. People exaggerate the comparisons all the time but I see nothing about turn based thats superior. It takes me far less time to get through a difficult, strategically challenging combat in real time, it takes me not that many more clicks, and I had a lot more room for creativity. I always could have taken a million different approach, a feeling I do not have from turn based.

DA:O was bad and would have been bad turn based anyway.

I'm sick of this. I mean, I can even accept that this is a biased view of what I prefer and that both styles are really never better or worse, but I'll never let someone claim turn based is straight up better. Its not.
---
http://sfjake.zxq.net/
#23clowningPosted 2/16/2014 11:43:48 AM
Except...those games do not require thought. They are soooo simple. Just count squares for range and aoe when applicable...it is so easy.

It is much more challenging to think quickly, than to piddle around doing simple arithmetic.

If we were talking about a chess game or something, where the opponent AI or player was challenging, that would be another matter, but we're not.

I get that some people prefer the slower pace of a turn based game. That's fine. But when it comes to having to think about stratagems and tactics, these games are so simple, that no real thought is required. I will never understand this notion of "I like to think and plan," etc. when it comes to games that are so mind numbingly simple. All you have to do is figure out the puzzle like moves made by the AI.

The other thing I don't understand is that we are talking RPGs. Now, I played table top RPGs. I started playing in the 80s when I was in HS. I played ONE character. That was MY character. But playing these party based RPGs means I don't play a character. I play an entire squad. It's quite a different kind of game, more like a TBT squad game, than an RPG.

This is why I consider a game like Mount and Blade to be more RPG than pretty much every other RPG on the market. You play one character, which you develop as you see fit. You impact the world with your actions, and there is a general but simply storyline which the player gets to pick via choices made in game. Not lame dialog wheel choices (or a list of choices in a menu), but choices that involve decision making; like helping some exile regain his kingdom, or overthrowing my king and replacing him, and so on.

Most other so-called RPGs are really little more than novels, through which we play. They really should be called interactive novels, not RPGs.
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
#24dekouPosted 2/16/2014 12:04:52 PM
clowning posted...
Except...those games do not require thought. They are soooo simple. Just count squares for range and aoe when applicable...it is so easy.

It is much more challenging to think quickly, than to piddle around doing simple arithmetic.

If we were talking about a chess game or something, where the opponent AI or player was challenging, that would be another matter, but we're not.


Jagged Alliance 2 is one of the hardest games I've ever played. It's not a chess match against Kasparov, but... seriously? "Soooo simple"? Please. Out of the TB games I've listed, the only one that's not significantly harder than average is Temple of Elemental Evil.

Also, RTwP has nothing to do with thinking quickly. The pause lets you think however slowly you want.

jake-sf posted...
Ridiculous micro-management is pretty much never necessary, and the real time with pause element just gives you more options instead of less, and thats it, period. Most of which you don't have to concern yourself -that- heavily with.


Selecting the exact route your character has to take is far from ridiculous micromanagement. It's one of the most basic tasks in tactical games and one that is made much more difficult by RT combat. Sure, waypoints and such help, but you still have to pause every time an enemy makes a move that could endanger your party member. The only reason why BG2 works at all is that it's ridiculously easy. That's why you don't have to concern yourself with basic tactics most of the time.

I'm not saying TB combat is inherently better, by the way. It's not. However, it is better for a D&D-like game, which Torment will probably be. RT combat, on the other hand, works quite well in games like Neverwinter Nights 1, The Witcher, Divine Divinity, etc. They're not too full of micro-ing.
#25mogexpress1Posted 2/16/2014 12:39:01 PM
Turn based has a complex and proven flow and speed to combat

RTwAP usually is awful with this and is immersion breaking.
---
Daddy's home
Shut up gabe and take my money
#26Talus057Posted 2/16/2014 12:42:02 PM
I was never a big fan of real time with a pause or without a pause. I'm a FFT geek, what can I say?
#27ElDudorinoPosted 2/16/2014 1:31:46 PM(edited)
jake-sf posted...
I had completely missed the torment numera debate, which pitted turn based vs real time with pause in a debate which was apparently very close in votes, with now half of the kickstarter wishing they hadn't backed torment.

Wow, okay, speaking of exaggeration! I strongly wanted combat to be traditional turn-based but I would still want the game if it went with an alternative style.

Anyway, you say that ridiculous micromanagement is pretty much never necessary in games with combat that "moves," but the only reason that's true is because those games can't allow themselves to put you in positions where it would BE necessary. In order to not be unplayably difficult for most players, they keep the battles manageable using the standard attack formations.

Contrast this with a game like Dark Sun: Shattered Lands where you can be fighting 70 enemies in one battle but you have the time to put up a wall of fog to obscure the archers' vision, Entangle the toughest melee enemies and throw out a couple of charm attempts while you're at it, buff your melee fighters, shield your casters, and do all this after the battle has ALREADY started. In a game like Baldur's Gate you're pretty much going to cast your buffs before battle and then smash with your fighters while throwing the occasional offensive mage spell unless you want to mash the pause button, which defeats the purpose.

Anyway, there are a lot of really popular turn-based games, so I highly doubt that this will deter that many D&D/RPG fans from playing. Fallout seemed to do just fine, as did Jagged Alliance 2 and X-Com. And to the guy who said these games are simple and aren't challenging... somehow I doubt you've played many of them. Jagged Alliance and X-Com (the classic ones) are some of the most punishing games ever made, and others like the Gold Box games, Aethra Chronicles, Yendorian Tales, Ultima, lots of older games which were necessarily turn-based- those games made you WORK for victory, while I don't think there's anything particularly challenging about games like Baldur's Gate once you stop trying to strategize and start trying to smash things from the front until they die.
#28jake-sfPosted 2/16/2014 1:44:42 PM(edited)
Am I the only one that plays Baldur's Gate with mod and has plenty of challenging moments? Which still doesn't mean I have to micro-manage more than turn based (but I do have to micro-manage more). Assaulting the bandit camp in BG1 with the ENTIRE camp just rushing at you is pretty amazing fun.

Baldur's Gate is also easily broken if you want to go that way, thats absolutely true.

Real time with pause represents MUCH more challenging development aspects, requires better AI, requires a lot more thoughts behind it. I mean, in BG the AI without mods is so dumb you can abuse it at every turn to make them sitting ducks, plenty of spells are broken and enemies knows not how to deal with them, etc...

I'm just trying to say that yes, its a much bigger task to make and balance a proper real time with pause game into something that strategically "works, but its not like it can't be done. There aren't however, glaring examples of very well designed RTwP games, which is a shame

Like I said though, BG with mods can be hard, challenging and much more strategically interesting, and more so if you just accept not to use those "cheesy strategies" the engine can't handle.

I stand by the potential of RTwP. Turn based simply has the benefit of being FAR easier to create and balance.
---
http://sfjake.zxq.net/
#29Omnipotent_CowPosted 2/16/2014 1:48:18 PM
I know if infinity engine characters weren't screwing around half the time after I gave them orders I'd like the system better.

Maybe a better implemented version of the toggle-able modes from Fallout: Tactics and Arcanum would be ideal.
#30clowningPosted 2/16/2014 3:32:34 PM
dekou posted...

Jagged Alliance 2 is one of the hardest games I've ever played.


Umm...JA isn't really an RPG, it's a strat more than anything else. I like 4x games that are TBS, but those are not RPGs either, even though some have so-called "RPG elements".
---
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. ...one begins to twist facts to suit theories.... Sir Arthur Conan Doyle