Disagree. It's just a different type of intelligent fight with strategic thinking. I think my own personal impression of the difference between TB and RTwP is that TB feels like chess, and RTwP feels like a battlefield simulator. One is more exacting in some cases (I'm thinking of good TB implementations, like ToEE), but I don't always want more exacting.elander_ said:Just the fact that we have this kind of battles that are won by grinding and brute force instead of an intelligent and balanced choice of opponents shows that RTwP is not meant for intelligent fights were strategic thinking is more important than being able to watch dozens of foes in a short period of time.
I was perfectly capable of doing ambushes, traps, ranged fire, and other strategic goodies in BG1 and BG2. In fact, because I sometimes play on a harder setting, I very often had to. For example, I have never been able to handle Nalia's Umber Hulks without some kind of carefully planned & executed attack.
About the only thing I miss in BG is that there is no "danger circle" showing the attack of opportunity range for each creature. But again, that starts to feel like moving chess pieces around, and I don't always want that. I'm sure I'll enjoy the implementation in AoD.
I wouldn't say that you can replace TB with RTwP, but then you weren't directing your comment to me. However, I also wouldn't say that TB is superior or even preferable. In my mind, TB with queued actions is equally as good as RTwP. However, I've never seen a good TBwQA (lots of pure TB, but never a queue), whereas the BG series has what I think is pretty good RTwP.elander_ said:If you like the chaos and trill of action combat then play action rpgs but don't say that TB can be replaced by RTwP.
Hmm. Maybe I would say that replacing TB with RTwP would be possible. Now that I think about it, if Beth had said that F3 would use a RTwP system that closely mirrored BG2 (I'm thinking of all the auto-pause options), I probably would have shrugged it off. It's just preference.