Shannow said:
While I'd agree with your points about execution I'd also call them academic.
Yeah, pretty much.
A RT(wP) done well beats a TB game done bad isn't really an argument.
Sort of. But I feel it does counter the "turn-based is universally better than RTWP" statement.
Does a well done RT(wP) beat a well done TB game (if both games are similar party RPGs) is the real question, isn't it?
Yeah, essentially.
Pro tip, casters are always the biggest threat and (unbuffed) the softest targets. Go for them first if possible. That alone should cover the argument for the TB game (no need to "save" turns)
Yes, but you don't know everything and you are forced to make anticipations, whereas you aren't in RTWP. He could be out of spells, he could be casting some harmless cantrips, he could be casting a quick defensive spell next turn that you potentially couldn't interrupt but you'll never know until it is too late. Having more up to date information presents a different set of tactical considerations. I don't know if you could consider it better or worse, but is different and something turn-based does struggle with.
So you see him cast possibly Horrid Wilting. You can pause and try to go for countermeasures. That requires you to read the situation quickly enough and pause quickly enough and your party to react quickly enough to your commands and for any of their attacks to actually get through and for the dmg to disrupt his spell...
Autopause? There were a myriad of auto-pausing features to help with this. It's like when people complain about turn-based being "too slow", you point towards the options menu with animation/turn speed.
EDIT: Oh, and your arguments about development generations of different systems is also quite academic. Arcanum had worse TB and RT gameplay than previous games of both systems. BG's RTwP is miles better than KotOR's, NWN(2)'s, etc.
Yeah, but on the whole, turn-based combat has come a long way from Ultima to X-Com, to Jagged Alliance 2, to Silent Storm. It's had a longer time to develop.
Vault Dweller said:
What are these generations you speak of? It's RT and it's got a pause feature. The concept didn't change since the Darklands days, did it? Neither did TB.
Turn-based has most certainly changed conceptually. From simple "you do one thing, they do one thing", to action points, to reaction shots, to interrupts, and beyond. Wasteland versus Xcom. Xcom versus Jagged Alliance 2. See what I mean?
Really? I guess that's why everyone here enjoys PST and NWN combat so much. Because it's better than most TB games.
All I'm saying is that turn-based isn't necessarily better than RTWP. Turn-based done well is (for the most part), but that doesn't imply that turn-based as a whole is superior in all aspects.
And? You are in TB mode. You have a mage and his cronies. Who's more dangerous? Cronies and the guy who actually has his own cronies? And who just happened to be a mage and thus is well equipped to fuck things up. Should I anticipate that he would try to cast some spells or not? Decisions, decisions...
Thing is, it's too much on the anticipation side. Yes, a mage can mess things up for your crew...but he can also be completely passive. He could just as easily cast a "harmless" stoneskin spell as a souped up death spell. You don't know until it's too late and there's no way of knowing. Sure, it may make things more difficult, but I'd feel it's a more artificial difficulty and more "cheap".
Or try a different spin on the example. In the turn-based version of the mage fight, you decided to attack the mage as he was the bigger tactical threat. But then, something unexpected happens, like a previously unforseen monster joining the fray, the mage having contingencies get tossed up, or you're attack rolls fuck up because random number generators hate you. Turn-based will bone you over incredibly hard for something like this. Unforeseen events can't be responded to because of the nature of turn-based combat. It's not very fair, nor very fun.
Although, most turn-based games account for this be reducing unknown factors and variability. You *know* certain things in games like X-Com and JA2. You *know* what enemies are capable of (or learn) and you can apply that constantly and consistently. Enemies behave consistently, and you rarely feel blindsided because in most cases you can look back and see what you did wrong or where you screwed up. Not so with other games, especially fantasy ones or those with a D&D like ruleset (read: lots of variable dice rolls).
For a final example, look at chess. Turn-based with full disclosure. You can know and see everything your opponent knows and sees about the current game situation. There's no queen magically having a fireball that you couldn't possibly predict, or a rook coming from off the board to put your king into checkmate. Turn-based works in this kind of environment...not so much in the unpredictable world of fantasy and such.
Which is one of the reasons why it sucks.
No, it just makes for a different set of challenges (not the twitchy kind though). And certain mechanics work in RTWP that don't work in turn-based. Enemies can field abilities in one that would be broken in the other. Look at chain contingencies and try thinking about how much fun those would be to deal with in a turn-based environment.
Which is why a 10 year old with fast fingers can beat RT games.
We're talking RTWP here. Being a 10 year-old with fast fingers make as much a difference in RTWP as being an old fogey with too much time makes in turn-based (read: none at all: both parties need to check the option menus and realize it doesn't matter).
