well i bought that disciples 3 game and am really enjoying it, the whole game is turn based, the battles are a bit tactical (although a lot more could be done to make them more so) and its a great to play a turn based game as something different.
i have read there is going to be a new add on coming out soon, which will supposedly add a lot more content, better AI and maybe more tactics, but for now i am enjoying it.

as for FO, i like my fps to be fps, but a like game under a different monica could work?
i also hate how dragon age and such ad a 'tactical edge' to real time playing by making you pause the game, seems a bit defeatist, a step backwards to me. i also disliked their use of dlc, FO had it right with their dlc and actually released a finished game with dlc as quirky add ons.

I don't see why that couldn't be arranged in a TB game. It would involve queuing up actions, with them corresponding with each other appropriately.



That's highly subjective and depends on how you approach the medium you're "immersing" yourself in. I, for example, was more immersed in Fallout 2 than 3. And infact, due to the "immersion" factor, I'd go as far as to say that the combat, to me, felt more "realistic" (if that's the word we have to use) in Fallout 1 and 2 than in 3. But as I said, a subjective matter that depends on how you approach it. Similiarly I was more immersed in Steel Panthers than Close Combat or C&C, and more in Operation Flashpoint than Bioshock.

I'm going to preface this with a bit of an explanation on what a "turn" represents, generally speaking. (This might be a "duh, I already knew that" thing, but we're going to want to be on the same page if we get any deeper into this.) One turn equals a specific amount of time (the average is usually somewhere around 3 seconds - though old-school D&D rules actually represented something closer to a minute.) The mechanics are set up to "limit" your actions to what your character ought to be able to accomplish in that amount of time. Each game has different ways of representing this, but the goal is still the same - a human being can only do so many things in those three seconds. If you happen to be superhuman, there's usually rules governing that, as well. Once every asset in the game has completed it's turn, that's called a "round."

All actions during each player's turn within that round are considered to have happened simultaneously - even if someone goes after you, that's still taking place in the same three seconds of time. In Fallout, and many games in general, some form of initiative score (Sequence in Fallout 1 and 2) determines the order of play. In Fallout, the characters with the higher Sequence score goes first. (I prefer different systems, myself, where the slowest - or the one with the least initiative - goes first, but can be interrupted at any time by a player with a higher score (representing a faster character being able to keep their head and intuit what the other guy is going to do.)

Now, what you want is to be able to make a stationary shot, and then move and shoot at the same time. First off, try doing that in a real-time game. It's not that easy. But it's doable. In Fallout, if have the AP for it, you can certainly make a shot, move mid-way, shoot again, and then finish your movement. Chances are you probably won't get very far, though. Maybe that's your gripe, there. But Fallout's not exactly the pinnacle of turn-based gaming, either. Trying to judge the merits of this approach to combat based on that one game alone is kind of like judging FPS games by only playing Wolfenstein. And there are turn-based systems that allow you to perform a full movement action while also making a shot. It's called a "snap shot," generally. And it's not at all an uncommon game mechanic.

So there you go. Yes, you can "move and shoot" at the same time in a turn-based game.

Maybe... "arcadey" would have been a better word. There's always lots of talk about "immersion" in discussions of this nature. To me, when I said "gamey," or "arcadey," I'm talking about what pulls me out of the experience. Kiting, circle strafing, bunny hopping, rocket jumping, etc - they're all perfectly valid real-time strategies. But they're all of them techniques that have a distinctly unrealistic bent, to my eyes. These are things for which there is no parallel in real-life. They remind me that I'm playing a videogame, and it pulls me out of the experience.

I find FPSers to be very immersive for the obvious reasons, I find RPGs to be immersive in a different way where inventory actions i.e. spell casting or potion preparation etc etc immerse in a different fashion to FPS big screen Gun barrel at the front. Arcadey is definitely a better word What I quite liked about FO BoS PS2 was the realtime Arcadey nature of the game, although it lacked the depth of the other FOs which was a real shame because as a Top-Down-Arcade-Shooter it was actually pretty good and had it have had the elements of previous FO games plus several more levels it would have been a class game, what would have been interesting is how this game may have been accepted as Canon if it was more in-Depth, more RPG and interestingly what would have happened if it had of actually been Turn-Based combat, would it have been welcomed by the Fallout Bible Thumpers??? I guess we'll never know. As for Realtime shooters I'm two things; stealthy long distance shooting or I'm a Runner & Gunner, which the latter current Turn Based Combat lacks, or I'd be singing the praises of TBC. So my ansa remains that I would still buy a turn-based FO game but it would be nice to have another for my Fallout collection, I'm currently ploughing my way thru FO1 for the first time with FO2 & Tactics lined up and ready to go. But my other ansa remains the same TBC is not viable in todays games-market especially for world wide mass consumption, unless both Realtime Combat and Turn-Based-Combat can be incorporated into the same game or it'll only appeal to a niche market, which may be what sum people what, you never know. But then again upon thinking more about it, wasn't the most recent Final Fantasy JRPG a turn-based game? Oh, I could be wrong in my assessment. Damn it!

^^It's a little off-topic, but the problem I had with BoS wasn't so much that it was a top-down real-time shooter, but that as a game of that type, I didn't find it up to par with the gameplay of similar games. (Heck, I quite enjoyed both Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, and The Bard's Tale - both of which featured pretty much the exact same gameplay, and were built with the same engine.) And that it played rather fast and loose with existing canon didn't help either. They attempted to re-iterate the art direction in a manner that I don't think quite worked out too well. But yeah - it could have been a cool game, actually. (I certainly pre-ordered it, at the time, hoping for the best...)

Back on topic: Heck, I'm not saying you should like turn-based games. I wouldn't even argue that there's more than a niche market for that sort of gameplay. And quite frankly, I thought that something along the lines of Fallout: Tactics was more appropriate for making use of the turn-based rules. (A single-player RPG where you're only in control of one character is, admittedly, a little bit lop-sided for a full-blown turn-based system, I think.)

All I'm trying to say is that many of us have perfectly valid reasons for playing these sorts of games, that there still exists a perfectly legitimate market for this sort of game, and that it's been quite some time since anyone's really made use of modern technology to revamp some of the concepts we've grown used to in turn-based videogames (where, unlike FPSs, very little great leaps forward have been made in recent memory.) I mean - I'm not a big fan of Fighting Games, myself. And they're kind of a nice market, as well. But it still remains a viable market, and companies still make games of that type. It might not be my cup of tea, but I can at least admit that I understand that the fans of that genre have valid reasons for enjoying the sorts of games that they do.

I feel that right there is the limiting factor for FPS games, what other playstyles do you really have? I’m also curious as to how you have your character setup in Fallout. I once tried to make Fallout more exciting and action packed and created a character I named Horatio Lead-Thrower. The idea behind the build was to use burst fire as much as possible, battles didn’t last nearly as long as not too many NPCs can withstand powerful burst weapons and I often shredded through 2-3 enemies at once; it was pretty awesome. It didn’t quite have that same run-n-gun feel that I think you’re missing but it seemed more gamey/arcadey to me; actually I felt more like Schwarzenegger in the police station assault scene from the first Terminator.

My Character is usually an action-packed lock-picking, gun repairing combat vet, I usually work on small guns, repair, lockpick then concentrate on energy weapons and hacking skills and then barter speech and finally big guns. Perks are usually I.T. and Criticals orientated and then shielding perks. I prefer V. hard on FO3, enemies don't die that easily. Sorry misread that, Fallout, small guns, lockpick, doctor, first aid, energy weapons, one shot, better criticals. I lower charisma, v.good strength a bit more I think, en vgood, pe vgood, average INT, good and very good for the rest, I can't remember right now. I suppose you can say FPSers are limited but I think TBC is as well, for me its all about freedom of movement and choice of were to go and what to do. In Realtime I run my ass outta there if necessary and pick them off at distance something I think TBC relies to much on computers stats to make the descisions of your aiming for you.

Immersion > as in deep involvement, (dictionary).

How deeply you are immersed in a game is, of course, dependant on how much you like the game.

However, you cannot immerse into a certain aspect of a game, at all, if that aspect is not actually present in the game. Turn-base play, if not there, you cannot immerse into it.

Turn-base, if only occurring once or twice in the game, will have a lower immersion possibility as well, the more there is, the more immersion.

Same with any role-play aspect, if there is a lesser degree there, then the immersion possibility will be less.

If playing the role of a person walking in a role-play game, there would be a higher immersion possibility in that role-play, if the animated action was realistic than if of the TB less realisic movement.

That's the compromise and loss in those having board-game type movements.
-------------- -------------- ------------ ----------------
Turn base play requires pre though out play, but normal real-time play also has pre though out play. Real-time play, it's sequence of actions and responses are, or should be, pre considered, as in real-life battles and military training.

Once you've been in the game a bit, in effect training, turn-based-play actions will become a bit repetitive and need less thought. The same happens if playing real-time, the actions, movements and responses are already familiar to you.

It was like that in Fallout Tactics when I switched to turn base play for a bit, it was a drag having to play out, step by step, the movements and actions that I would have done in real-time anyway. I switched back again.

Sure, TB is fun figuring it out, and very satisfying to see your calculations play out to a win, but it can wear off a bit as calculations become much the same and familiar to you, as it does in real-time as well, even my real-time combat actions have become pretty automatic. Turn-based play would have dragged it out much longer, and were it in Fallout3, I would have switched it off, way-back.

Just pointing out some pros and cons.

Most of your post, there's not much for me to comment on. I agree, all things have their own pros and cons.

This, however. I think again we're dealing with a case of misrepresentation and using a couple of examples to define inherent qualities to an entire mode of play. (Hyperbole, but an extreme example to illustrate my point - this is like if I were to play the original Wolfenstein and from that make the assumption that FPS games don't allow you to look up or down.) You seem to be under the mistaken conclusion that, because you know of no TB games with more realistic movement (I'm guessing because you assume all turn-based games must takes place on some form of grid, or something,) that this must be an inherent case of the entire mode of play.

This is not the case. I don't even have to get into how a grid doesn't have to be square, can have any number of sides (especially on a computer) and generally gives more than enough freedom of movement to properly animate any conceivable path or action. I can counter your conclusion by simply pointing out what many of us table-top gamers already know - that you don't need hexes at all to play a turn-based game, given the proper ruleset. Many, many games only define how far you can move in a given sequence (dictated by any number of variables.) I play loads of games where all I need is a tape measure.

There's no inherent reason you couldn't construct a turn-based videogame wherein you're allowed to "draw" your character's movement path, freehand, for each turn. (Or even directly control, a la a real-time game, up to your character's effective distance for the turn.) I'd go even further - in that because in a turn-based game all animations are able to be calculated after the fact, and given recent advances in procedural technology (a la the Euphoria engine, etc) you could conceivably have a turn-based game with movement that would be even more realistic than current real-time games.

Fallout style TB doesn't lack that ~its just that you tend to die if you do it.
Its been illustrated many times in the recent past that AP's directly equate to time. Turns are what you do with the entire amount of time that you have. So... in one turn, you might charge at the enemy, fire a shot, and reload; or instead of reload, take two more steps towards your target, but have an empty gun; or shoot twice, or aim very carefully and then reload; or choose to rummage around in your backpack for a grenade; or put a stimpack in your hand for easy use on you or an NPC (like Dogmeat for instance); Or you back away into a house and shut the door, or loot ammo from a fallen foe; You can even knock down an opponent and unload his guns. It all depends on what your PC can accomplish in a few seconds time.

The time spent is considered simultaneous and constant, but the turn mechanics allow you to meticulously plan out the events based on what you unique character can achieve; and everyone gets a chance to plan what they do in the round.



Both true


I can give two non fallout examples, the first is Disciples 2 where the enemies abilities vary greatly from encounter to encounter and radically alter the what would be considered winning tactics ~because to play repetitively is to ignore their threat and usually get killed ~and in that game enemies all level up from XP's gained in battle, so you can't just hit & run without risking them gaining power and abilities for the next fight.

Another game I know has a direct parallel to what you've said of Realtime Vs. Turns.
Two fighting games the first is (take your pick)... Say Streetfighter. Its a realtime game of simple pattern based combat with repetitive combat moves.
The challenge is that opponents have special moves and get harder to connect to with your own. Playing this game is like you've said, pre-thought sequences of action ~that you get used to.

The second game is another beat'em up ~but its completely turn based. your turn is as long as you want, and your choices are virtually unlimited attacks. The player has full control over every joint in the body of the fighter, and can have the fighter grab opponents any time the hand contacts them. You can play this game and almost never repeat your actions exactly even if you tried. The game is called Toribash, and it demonstrates exactly what many have tried to impart to others about the turn based concept of game time. (that being that time is considered simultaneous, and the players use turns to plan their actions... It does not take place linearly or consecutively as some seem to assume)

They sort of did this with Toribash (though its not at the point of realism yet; I don't see why it could not someday in the near future use polygon meshes like the ones in Fallout 3 for the fights :shrug:). *Other than them not wanting to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwSBhm5ScV8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHqB6lEE3Tg&feature=related

Ah yes, Toribash. Quite a fun game. (Hopefully at some point they''ll put in some code to let you start designing your own opening poses, or selecting from a list or something - would really open up the game a bit more...) Certainly a "niche" game if ever there was one, but an excellent example that with a modicum of imagination "turn-based" can mean much more than "overhead game where you take turns moving between squares."

First off, Toribash definitely qualifies as Cool in my book.

Now, based on some of the ideas kicked around here, picture this:

You are sneaking your way through a Fallout subway station and as you come down the ramp you see a ghoul hunkered down about 10 meters away by the top of the escalator. He doesn’t know you’re there, but that’s about to change. You hit the button to initiate combat. FFFSSHHHP! (that’s supposed to be that cool Fallout “entering combat” sound) On your screen the size of the Ghoul from this distance is 1 inch by 1.5 inches. You have equipped a pistol, which isn’t a terribly accurate weapon to begin with, and your Small Arms skill is still pretty low. When you use your mouse to aim your targeting reticle is a circle 3 inches in diameter. You bullet, when fired, will hit something within this circle and the circle stays the same size regardless of distance to target, at point blank range your target fills the entire circle and long distance shots have a greater chance to miss than hit, also if there are multiple targets within that circle you have the chance to hit or miss anyone of them. As your skill goes up the circle becomes smaller, also weapon type makes a difference on targeting reticle size, a hunting rifle would have a smaller reticle while a shotgun loaded with buckshot would have more chances to hit within a larger area. Back to the ghoul; you have enough action points to fire three rounds but you can visibly see that your chance to hit is not too good, so you hit the button to make a targeted shot, but you will only get 2, at this point the original target area becomes locked and a smaller, perhaps 2 inch diameter, circle appears within it. This circle you may place over the head or leg or whatever specific body part you want to try to hit, now when you fire the game rolls against your small arms skill to decide whether your shot hits a random place within that targeted area or the larger targeting reticle. (Where’d you hit him? In his lower lip, Where was you aiming? His upper lip)
You could also try to close the distance on your target by sneaking forward using your normal forward movement key. There is no hex system of movement instead your AP just gradually goes down as you move, also your targeting circle gets slightly bigger as you are not as steady while moving. If you sneak forward you can cover about 1/3 of the gap, if you walk at normal pace then you can close about 2/3 but you might alert the ghoul before you get your shots off. You can also just throw stealth right out and go at a full run, of course aiming a pistol while sprinting is almost impossible so you switch to your Unarmed skill and just charge/tackle the ghoul. Depending on your stats you can break bones (yours, his or both), slam him into the ground hard enough to daze him for a turn or two (or just knock him out cold) or possibly send him flying down the steps or over the railing. Though there is also the possibility that he hears you coming and evades, then you go flying over the railing instead (I think this would constitute a “critical failure”)

Let me put it another way.

For a start, yes agreed, turn-base can have realistic movements.. within a turn .. but that is the point, there is a pause in the flow of the game, while the other "side" takes a turn.

It is a turn-base play as opposed to other play, such as the "role-play" continuous movement of walking, or similar. There is a break in that continuous flow of movement that non turn-base role-play games have ... there is some loss to that role-play aspect. And that was my point really.

------- ------- ------- ------- -------

Early Fallouts are considered to be role-play-games, but they also had an element of turn-base in them. Fallout3 had even less of any turn-base element in it, and in effect has more of the flowing continuous movements and actions of a role-play game because of that.

Accepted that all games are role-play in some respect, but picking on the continuous flow of animation that at least people make, or similar, and accepted as not being turn-based, grid or no grid.


I said:-....
Once you've been in the game a bit, in effect training, turn-based-play actions will become a bit repetitive and need less thought. The same happens if playing real-time, the actions, movements and responses are already familiar to you.
...........
EDIT "will" to usually, mostly, or often. You choose.

A typo.....

I don't quite get this. Are you saying that TB combat detracts from the RP of the RPG?

Few people will consider Turn based combat as detracting from roleplay in an RPG ~ In my experience there is no practical effect by either the real time or turn based method on the Role aspect in RPG's
(unless... one does not define "Role" by the same meaning as seems common among most RPG players :shrug: )

The early Fallouts' consistently rank among the top role playing games ever made (to date). TB combat mechanics don't affect the RPG aspect in the least as far as I can tell. (would you explain by example?)

This is true... of almost every single thing in life; be it playing Streefighter, playing Pool, jumping from a plane, water skiing, Juggling, or any other activity not involving a conscience (which could make some actions remain difficult despite being routine).

Sitruc, have you looked at the Toribash links from my last post? Perhaps watch them again and and form an example of how a Turn Based approach detracts from the game or the other games, because I'm just not seeing it. It is a fact that of all the games that I own, the vast majority of [what I would call] "good" RPG's tend to be turn based ~not all of them, but most; and honestly... If I look at the ones that aren't, I don't see why they couldn't be :shrug: IMO (observations), you can generally make a good TB game from a realtime game, but not often the other way around (with the exception of racing games I would guess). The reason being that (again, in general), TB games can afford more complexity without becoming overloaded. Imagine playing Toribash in realtime, with full control over every joint in the skeleton ~Keep in mind that if you take that away, say by exchanging it for a few motion capture martial arts moves... then you severely damage the gameplay and defeat the point of the game. :shrug:

Edit: *** Look at this link if you would, and after watching, tell me what in your opinion is... bad? flawed, or wrong with it; but most importantly, please say why exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMUfq37rexQ

(I'd say the camera and silly combat shouts are pretty bad :facepalm: , but that has nothing to do with the game mechanics )

I would love it if they brought out a future fallout title with turn based combat, I grew up on turn based strategy games and RPGS so to me its more fun and I strategize alot more. it makes me think..

Yeah, I like that idea. Something very much along those lines that I've always wanted to see, is where that primary circle extends out to a distance of that weapon's average range (the actual name is escaping me at the moment, but essentially the maximum distance for the weapon where any further and you'd begin to lose accuracy.) And that circle (which of course is based on the weapon and your character's skill and other variables) defines a cone extending from your PC. (So that at further ranges, that "circle" is much larger, and smaller the closer in you get to point-blank range.) And then yes - determined by a random seed, the bullet deviates to a random arc within that cone of fire.

(So yeah, basically what you said... )

I think perhaps a better way to phrase that would be "The specific types of roleplaying games I enjoy offer continuous movement and action, and in games which do break that continuity I feel it takes away from my enjoyment of the roleplaying aspect." (Or something along those lines.)

I mean fine - you don't like turn-based stuff. You certainly don't have to. I don't think anyone here is trying to say you should. (Of course I wish more people enjoyed the things I like, so that there'd be a larger market for it and more games made to my particular tastes. But far be it for me to say someone is "wrong" to think differently. It's all a matter of opinion, after all.)

See, there's where we differ. You seem to be trying to make an assertion that "Roleplaying Games" must, as an inherent basic property, have a "continuous flow of movement." (ie, be real-time.) But first you'd have to prove that's actually a part of the definition of a roleplaying game. I don't think you can do that, quite frankly. In fact, the two elements are separate. Roleplaying games can be anything wherein you, well, "play a role." (I'm not going to get into a discussion of "What is a Roleplaying Game" here, since that's another thread entirely.) That can be turn-based or real-time. It just makes for different "types" of game. I mean, strategy games can be turn-based or real-time. Ditto action games, adventure games, fighting games (as we've seen from Toribash,) and conceivably just about every other "type" of game imaginable.

Also, Fallout 3 had no turn-based elements in it. Maybe others feel differently, but if you ask me, there's nothing turn-based about VATS. If anything, I find it plays more like a (very effective, I think) sort of bullet time. Actually, I'm fine with that, too.

That's fair. Most games (of any sort) can become quite repetitive once you've kind of learned the pattern, so to speak. But the best ones are able to break away from that, or change things up enough so that it never (or at least rarely) becomes repetitive. I'm sure we can all think of our favorite real-time games where you never got bored of the action. And I can tell you that the same is true for turn-based games, as well. I've never found Civilization, for example, to be repetitive. Sure, Fallout 1's combat got a bit tedious after a fashion (and surely the old Final Fantasy games certainly did,) but in the same way I can say that Diablo's actions can "become a bit repetitive and need less though," - they are the exception that proves the rule.

In other words, the tendency for a game to become less challenging and more repetitive as you become more familiar with it is a design challenge for any game - be it real-time, turn-based, or other.

This is the problem; I'm not going to get into a discussion of "What is a Roleplaying Game" here either, but... It is the case that a percentage of the market has the preconception that roleplaying games are a class of game that depict the realtime vantage of the PC for the purpose of imagining that the player exists in the world 'in place' of the PC. I think everyone can (most likely) agree that the RPG genre as a whole, cannot be so broadly pigeon-holed into so specific a class of game. Anyone else agree?

:thumbsup: Same here. I would rather (had I know at the time the intentions for the game), rather the game had it's own unique play on Max Payne style Bullet time, but with with Terminator style targeting overlays and assist. This would allow the player to run and shoot, or dive and shoot in slowed time using modified continuous turn, and with the same VATS style limb targeting.... and no need for the slow motion cinematic (as well as bypassing entirely, the wall shooting bug).

I don't know why people cannot see the difference between turn-base play and real-time play. They can be equally enjoyed, but they are different kinds of play. One play, if playing the role of a person, that role-play has flowing animated movement actions that a person really would make. The other, TB, does not. One has a closer role-play realism to the role that you are playing, that of a person in a Fallout3 apocalypse scenario for instance, the movements being natural. Simple enough I would have thought, but ok, some don't get it.

I said before:..............
It is a turn-base play as opposed to other play, such as the "role-play" continuous movement of walking, or similar. There is a break in that continuous flow of movement that non turn-base role-play games have ... there is some loss to that role-play aspect. And that was my point really.
....................



Laughs.
You might think that is a better way to say what I said, but it's nothing like what I said. "Turn-base lacks the flowing animated movements with pauses in turns, that detracts in role-play realism when playing a person in a scenario" (paraphrasing).

As I have said before, I like TB as well. TB in a game like Fallout3, with it's size and vast amount of content, I would have switched it off pretty soon, I like exploration so much that TB would just get in the way. For me there is plenty of strategic and tactical considerations without it to give me 150 hours play. I'm not sure I would want 1500 hours of play, calculating exactly the same actions in TB that would have done anyway in real-time. It was like that in Fallout Tactics where I switched off TB, the movements were the same but just took longer. It's ok for a while though. It anybody really wants a TB game, then best go for a TB smaller game, but yes I like TB. I played WW2 and won, being Germany, so.........

Role-Playing-Game is just a broad category description of what the game content predominantly is like, so that people know the type of game it is. Early Fallouts fit into RPG even with having turn base elements. The game might be also sub-categorised as having TB elements ... and so on.

Generally, RPG is accepted as being mostly about playing a role in a scenario, and playing a role with as realistic animation as possible, such as when playing as a person. Nothing like a turn-base board game, even though a board game has elements of role-play, as in a WW2 war game moving around armoured battle pieces.

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8988/uhhno.jpg

I see. The confusion here seems to be the difference in how we each define an RPG. To me an RPG is a game in which you take on the role of a “blank” character and through your action as you play (Through Level Ups, Experience Points, Skill Points, Character Points, Advancement Points, ect…) you shape them into a more defined character, hopefully one who can withstand the ever increasing challenges of their overly eventful life. Whether you are physically rolling dice and keeping track with pencil and paper or clicking buttons on a Mouse/Keyboard/Controler or donning specific articles of clothing and actually doing the movements yourself, it’s the advancement and development of the character that defines it as an RPG, the specific mechanics are irrelavent.

Of course that is just my opinion. If anyone one really wants to argue the particular idiosyncrasies of RPG vs CRPG vs LARP vs That-One-Guy-Way-Too-into-the-Renaissance-Fair, I’m sure it will lead to some very interesting conversation. I’ve been pleased enough by the posts here showing real interest in turn based games that I’ve begun pining for a game that doesn’t exist, that may never exist :sadvaultboy: … unless…

Is anyone here secretly Todd Howard by chance? :hehe:


How about just the head of any big Game company?

… Indie Game Company? ^_^

Anyone just like to play around with those free 3D game engines and can show me some good ones? :mellow:

How about just someone with a set of 12 sided die willing to try out some game play ideas I've been thinking about?

[quote name='Sitruc' date='12 August 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1281627552' post='16267649']
Laughs.[/quote]No one has laughed at you... please don't laugh at us.

[quote]
... "Turn-base lacks the flowing animated movements with pauses in turns, that detracts in role-play realism when playing a person in a scenario" (paraphrasing).][/quote]That is a subjective, and personal view. :shrug:

[quote]
Generally, RPG is accepted as being mostly about playing a role in a scenario, and playing a role with as realistic animation as possible, such as when playing as a person. Nothing like a turn-base board game, even though a board game has elements of role-play, as in a WW2 war game moving around armoured battle pieces.
[/quote]I've never seen that requirement or assumption in any RPG. As far as I can tell, (video) animation has no link or relation to playing a role.

Yeah, I don't really have much to add that Gizmo or SteveDog haven't already covered. Really, I wonder if we're just arguing at cross-purposes here. Sitruc, I'm not sure if you're fully articulating the point you're trying to make, or something somewhere is getting lost in the translation between the points we're all trying to make. Because at this point we've started to venture to that downward spiral of circular debate...

So, Sitruc (because it seems you've been the one we've all been ganging up on for a couple of pages, now) it's been a fun debate so far, but I want to re-iterate my position as clearly as I can (which isn't always so easy) before we just get stuck repeating the same things over and over again. (Because if we can clear things up a bit, we might even find that we actually agree about a lot of this stuff...)

First off, I think the most important thing is to make sure we're all on the same page in regards to fact, and opinion. When someone says, for example, "turn-based doesn't belong in roleplaying games," it's often hard to tell if they're just stating an opinion, or if they actually think that's a cold hard fact. "I don't like roleplaying games with turn-based content in them" is much clearer. Then we all know someone is just stating a (perfectly valid) opinion, and there's not much to contradict, there. (Because if someone says "I don't like peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches," what am I going to tell them - that they actually do like PB&J? That they're wrong for feeling that way?) So going forward, I think it's important to be clear on this point, above all else. I may disagree with an opinion, but it's when representing one as a fact that I have room to take issue with it.

So, here's my stance on this whole thing:

Opinion: I like turn-based games. I like role-playing games. I also enjoy a number of real-time games; and even many role-playing games that feature real-time combat. What I prefer is turn-based roleplaying games.

Fact: It's possible to have a role-playing game with turn-based combat. Some people might not like it that way, but it's still a role-playing game. There is no such thing as a "better" way to do a role-playing game - as personal taste is only a matter of opinion, and everyone has different tastes.

Fact: There's no reason someone couldn't do a perfectly good role-playing game with turn-based strategy and modern technology and techniques. As evidenced in this thread - people would buy that (though not as many as would buy another sort of game - obviously this is a niche market, and we're all very much aware of that.)

Fact: Turn-based combat wouldn't make the game "less" of a role-playing game, nor would it inherently (here's a http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent) take away from the role-playing aspect. Some people might have the opinion that, for them, this would be undesirable - but because not everyone feels this way makes it a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective matter, and therefore - by definition - not an objective fact.

My assumption based on Sitruc's descriptions, is that Sitruc believes that the presence of breaks in free movement (turns) jar the illusion of "being" the character ~as the character would not see time stand still, and everyone act out in turn. While there is nothing wrong with this preference :shrug:, not every person needs it, and not every RPG implements it (or needs it) as part of the intended experience of the game. ~it is not intrinsic to RPG's. It could however be considered a major part of those few RPG's that seek to put the player behind the PC iris.

http://kotaku.com/5604223/the-game-that-wasnt-there

That is all.