Poll: Will we ever see turn-based WRPG's again?
- Thread starter Tribalbeat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I do love turn based combat. Let's get away from all this "real time" bullshit they're putting in my beloved JRPGs!
Oh wait? Turn based WRPGs like Fallout and Baldur's Gate?
I miss it, too.
Oh wait? Turn based WRPGs like Fallout and Baldur's Gate?
I miss it, too.
I'm praying for a Fallout or X-Com at some point in the next 20 years... may not happen, but 20 years is a lot of leg room, so I might get lucky.
NWN and Temple of Elemental Evil (heavier on the turn-based) made a nice compromise between real/turn based combat .... there's no reason why you can't combine the two.
A combination of turn based and real time is always good. It keeps strategy, whilst encourages speed.
A combination of turn based and real time is always good. It keeps strategy, whilst encourages speed.
I love! turn-based strategy RPG's. My top 5 games of all time has 3 of them (all J). They're easy to make and with a good story and script they can provide many hours of entertainment. They'll never die because of their relative ease but I hope one day they can re-achieve the popularity they had back in the 90's.
Ugh I'm glad it's dead. The reason turn based gamed play was invented was that they couldn't actually program the battles they wanted to show. I just feel turn based gameplay can get in the way of an interesting story. Is there anything more painful then being interrupted by a random battle 
What do you define as a modern rpg? Also you do that in a turn based game so much more than Oblivion. In Oblivion you either wait for an attack block and attack back 2-3 times or Mash spell cast or mash fire arrows or use paralyze and mash attack or use poison and wait or sneak and get 1 hit KOs. So I fail to see some great master strategy that can't be done as good as if not better in a turn based game.HG131 said:
Real time and turn based BOTH have their own place in things. To say it is outdated is to basically say all board games (warhammer 40k, chess, risk, diplomacy, settlers, etc.) and games with long play time/time-investment (Master of Orion, 4X games, etc.) are useless.
If you feel this way, then don't play them.
-----
This is going to be a sidenote, but it really annoys me what some people said.
Some people said that they don't like turn-based games because they are not skill based.
Sorry, but quite frankly, you must not have any great depth of experience in any board game or 'good' turn-based games to say any turn-based game isn't skill.
Chess and other board games are '100%' determinant in that your actions (chosen skillfully or not) determine whether you win or lose. Not a random die roll. Several chess masters say there is luck in chess but this is mainly only an issue when opponents are roughly equal. Most games can be subjectively given a certain relative percentage of "80%" skill, "20%" luck (depending on game, etc.) and most issues of luck won't come up. Strategy board games (for the most part) are at least 50% or higher based on skill, with usually a low 10%-30%ish luck. RPGs are debatable as to how much skill/luck there is, but many would argue that you have enough control to minimize luck with enough effort and knowledge of the 'game world'. FPS are mildly debatable depending on game, players and style. It can be high skill, low luck, but I think it is impossible to claim no luck at all.
Even if a game can be classified (I think there are a few personally) as 100% skill - no luck, players are human and if you include external game factors (fatigue, etc.) as luck then nothing can be truly independent of luck.
-------------
I personally believe that games are only at their best when they have a high amount of input from the player and all games have 'rules' which control the amount of input and how things are resolved to the players.
Turn-based is an extreme 'rule' that uses 'turns' to give players "full control"... time will not advance without their input so you have 'infinite' time to have things resolved for the player and for the game.
In any game played outside of a computer, it takes 'time' to resolve things. Games with simple/clear rules(dodgeball, paintball, etc.) can be resolved just by playing and looking in many cases. LARPing, board games, complex rules etc. which can not be resolved 'instantly' tend towards some kind of 'turn-based' resolution.
The computer is the only reason why non-turn based complex ruled games are feasible. (FPS are not 'complex rules' in the same sense that in paintball, you aim, shoot, see if they are hit by paint.) The computer handles 'resolution' under the table while you enjoy the game.
Let's imagine starcraft as a turn-based game. It would be full control over all macro and micro decisions with infinite decision making time. (I prefer SC as a RTS but there IS a SC board game so just accept this as an example). I'd control my economy, battle, tech, etc. all at the same time and so would my opponent. In this case, the game would not be based on our hotkeys, clicks per minute, etc. but 100% based on my strategic decisions per turn versus yours.
Heck, if you played SC2 at the 'slowest' speed it might be slow enough to be 'infinite decision making time' for some people and actually play out like this. This would be bad and boring to many but the crucial point here is 'time'. The computer can play out and resolve things 'nigh' instantly, but the player is now the limiting factor. Players need 'time' to resolve and react themselves. If there was a super ridiculously fast mode where player control and player resolution went out the window, then it would be ridiculously bad as well. The main balancing point is giving the player as much control as possible while handling player and 'computer/rule' resolution properly. This is probably the most important thing in all games.
---
Turn-based gives that 'infinite decision making time/resolution' so you can have full control. Dragon Age at lower difficulty is do-able 100% real time. At higher difficulty, you NEED extra control... a way to pause and micro management and resolve things at a player-game level.
The board games I know of that simulate 'real-time' (Mission command type game with CDs playing missions that determine time, and some other one) are do-able but really have to fine-tune and streamline 'resolving' things as quickly as possible to keep the game flowing 'real-time'. Otherwise you lose control and everything implodes.
In the end, Turn-based sacrifice 'time' to place full control/informed decision making/resolution at the top. Whether games use it just as a mechanic or as a feature is really dependent on how much control and information there is. If it is just "attack, defend, block, run" without anything else, then that is just using turn-base to resolve actions. If you need to use skills, abilities, min-max, control, micro, etc. then it is a feature.
C
If you feel this way, then don't play them.
-----
This is going to be a sidenote, but it really annoys me what some people said.
Some people said that they don't like turn-based games because they are not skill based.
Sorry, but quite frankly, you must not have any great depth of experience in any board game or 'good' turn-based games to say any turn-based game isn't skill.
Chess and other board games are '100%' determinant in that your actions (chosen skillfully or not) determine whether you win or lose. Not a random die roll. Several chess masters say there is luck in chess but this is mainly only an issue when opponents are roughly equal. Most games can be subjectively given a certain relative percentage of "80%" skill, "20%" luck (depending on game, etc.) and most issues of luck won't come up. Strategy board games (for the most part) are at least 50% or higher based on skill, with usually a low 10%-30%ish luck. RPGs are debatable as to how much skill/luck there is, but many would argue that you have enough control to minimize luck with enough effort and knowledge of the 'game world'. FPS are mildly debatable depending on game, players and style. It can be high skill, low luck, but I think it is impossible to claim no luck at all.
Even if a game can be classified (I think there are a few personally) as 100% skill - no luck, players are human and if you include external game factors (fatigue, etc.) as luck then nothing can be truly independent of luck.
-------------
I personally believe that games are only at their best when they have a high amount of input from the player and all games have 'rules' which control the amount of input and how things are resolved to the players.
Turn-based is an extreme 'rule' that uses 'turns' to give players "full control"... time will not advance without their input so you have 'infinite' time to have things resolved for the player and for the game.
In any game played outside of a computer, it takes 'time' to resolve things. Games with simple/clear rules(dodgeball, paintball, etc.) can be resolved just by playing and looking in many cases. LARPing, board games, complex rules etc. which can not be resolved 'instantly' tend towards some kind of 'turn-based' resolution.
The computer is the only reason why non-turn based complex ruled games are feasible. (FPS are not 'complex rules' in the same sense that in paintball, you aim, shoot, see if they are hit by paint.) The computer handles 'resolution' under the table while you enjoy the game.
Let's imagine starcraft as a turn-based game. It would be full control over all macro and micro decisions with infinite decision making time. (I prefer SC as a RTS but there IS a SC board game so just accept this as an example). I'd control my economy, battle, tech, etc. all at the same time and so would my opponent. In this case, the game would not be based on our hotkeys, clicks per minute, etc. but 100% based on my strategic decisions per turn versus yours.
Heck, if you played SC2 at the 'slowest' speed it might be slow enough to be 'infinite decision making time' for some people and actually play out like this. This would be bad and boring to many but the crucial point here is 'time'. The computer can play out and resolve things 'nigh' instantly, but the player is now the limiting factor. Players need 'time' to resolve and react themselves. If there was a super ridiculously fast mode where player control and player resolution went out the window, then it would be ridiculously bad as well. The main balancing point is giving the player as much control as possible while handling player and 'computer/rule' resolution properly. This is probably the most important thing in all games.
---
Turn-based gives that 'infinite decision making time/resolution' so you can have full control. Dragon Age at lower difficulty is do-able 100% real time. At higher difficulty, you NEED extra control... a way to pause and micro management and resolve things at a player-game level.
The board games I know of that simulate 'real-time' (Mission command type game with CDs playing missions that determine time, and some other one) are do-able but really have to fine-tune and streamline 'resolving' things as quickly as possible to keep the game flowing 'real-time'. Otherwise you lose control and everything implodes.
In the end, Turn-based sacrifice 'time' to place full control/informed decision making/resolution at the top. Whether games use it just as a mechanic or as a feature is really dependent on how much control and information there is. If it is just "attack, defend, block, run" without anything else, then that is just using turn-base to resolve actions. If you need to use skills, abilities, min-max, control, micro, etc. then it is a feature.
C
This.Arisato-kun said:
Turn-based combat is incredibly complex, strategic, and fun if done right. The SMT series and other JRPGs like Lost Odyssey are shining examples of this. You can't save yourself just by leveling; to win a tough battle, you have to plan accordingly and use everything at your disposal.
THAT is the kind of turn-based fighting I want to see in WRPGs.
I love turn based combat! I don't understand why people hate it so much. I think it works much better for a genre as statistic-based as RPG's much better than real-time combat.
Notice that there are still turn based strategy games along with real time, hell, they mix in some games(total war series) RPG's are perfectly alright with either mixing it or being turn based as well, I dont' see how a well made turn based RPG wouldn't have at least some appeal.
Can people please stop talking about the JRPG method of TBC? This thread isn't about TBC in JRPG's. It is about Dungeons and Dragons-esc combat where players can do more than simply attack the enemy, they can set traps, take cover, or even escape from the enemy.
It seems that most people who grew up on turn-based prefer that system, while more recent gamers prefer the real-time approach. I personally prefer the ones with a more mixed type of fighting for RPGs and real-time for everything else. The whole "Ok now you hit me. ouch. Alright now I hit you" thing really breaks immersion and seems slightly brain dead to me.
I've always loved both Bioware's KOTOR type system, and the Mario RPGs. Theoretically it's possible to plan everything out, but if you have the reflexes it's just as fine.
Of course Strategy Games (with the obvious exception of RTSs) such as tower defense and Tactics type games need turns, as they are the ones that need contemplation and thought.
I've always loved both Bioware's KOTOR type system, and the Mario RPGs. Theoretically it's possible to plan everything out, but if you have the reflexes it's just as fine.
Of course Strategy Games (with the obvious exception of RTSs) such as tower defense and Tactics type games need turns, as they are the ones that need contemplation and thought.