-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
[TB vs. RT]RPGs should not rely on the player's skills?
- Thread starter Wursel
- Start date
Romanian_Dude2005
Scholar
Well in both cases it relies on the player's tactical skill. But in TB's case there's less player involvement. The player should interact with the game through chooices, the character should workout those chooices based on how good he is on the choosed action.
However this does not determine the quality of the gameplay. Morrowind's combat (despite the fact it was RT) had little player involvement and it stinked to high heaven. Fallout and TOEE on the other hand requires you to make tactical chooices and because of that it's more fun.
However this does not determine the quality of the gameplay. Morrowind's combat (despite the fact it was RT) had little player involvement and it stinked to high heaven. Fallout and TOEE on the other hand requires you to make tactical chooices and because of that it's more fun.
golgotha
Liturgist
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 187
Are you suggesting that the game play combat for you? If that were to become common then how would the Final Fantasy franchise stand out?Wursel said:I think I often read here that turn-based combat is better for RPGs than real-time with hopping around and aiming and stuff, because only the character's skill should matter.
But wouldn't that still rely on the player's tactical skills?
It's not impossible for a real-time combat system to accurately reflect real-world dynamics. Mount & Blade, for instance.
Yes, there is a certain level of tactical familiarity required by the player, but even assuming that the player is dumb as nails and can't figure out that healing spells harm undead, and that eye shots get more criticals the system is still designed to allow the player to determine the character's combat role on his own terms. A real-time system doesn't offer that kind of complexity, since it's impossible to factor in effective party dynamics, you can't even really control all party members simultaneously, because the system can't allow it.
Yes, there is a certain level of tactical familiarity required by the player, but even assuming that the player is dumb as nails and can't figure out that healing spells harm undead, and that eye shots get more criticals the system is still designed to allow the player to determine the character's combat role on his own terms. A real-time system doesn't offer that kind of complexity, since it's impossible to factor in effective party dynamics, you can't even really control all party members simultaneously, because the system can't allow it.
Bah
Arcane
suibhne said:Some people think RPGs shouldn't rely on the physical or twitch skills of the player. I don't think anyone believes players shouldn't be distinguished based on stupidity.
Again it comes down to preference. I'd much rather play a slow, tactical, thinking game, than a fast-pased mouse-skill game. Then again, I wasn't raised by my parents TV.
Bradylama said:
Let's be honest - it's not possible for either real-time or turn-based combat to accurately reflect real-world dynamics. We're talking about computer games; if you're looking for realism, join the Army. Until we have direct neural interfaces, however, TB combat will always be much more effective for game designs which rely heavily on measurements of character combat skill rather than player reflexes. You can certainly prefer the player engagement of RT combat, and you can come up with RT interfaces/systems which don't denigrate character skill too much (tho it's rare to find such systems)...but I don't think anyone can make a credible argument that RT does a better job of responding to character skill than TB.
Great! Now we can close this thread and celebreate! I'd play Silent Storm in celibration, but I am too busy playing another game already!Gambler said:
elander_
Arbiter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,015
Wursel said:I think I often read here that turn-based combat is better for RPGs than real-time with hopping around and aiming and stuff, because only the character's skill should matter.
But wouldn't that still rely on the player's tactical skills?
This is often made completely irrelevant by the way each one of these systems is implemented. I know tb games i wouldn't touch even if they paid me and i know real-time rpgs that did it awesomely like Bloodlines and Gothic 3 (with the patch and a good fps of course).
"A CRPG only means a an RPG where the software takes the role of the GM and the other players."
Thats praticaly impossible.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Is it? I think it worked quite nicely in Realms of Arkania.
"You come across a ravaged and old bridge, apparently not very safe. %s stares at the gaping abyss in fear, urging the group to find a better way around the chasm.
Do you...
...cast an Increase Courage spell?
...try to convince %s that the bridge is safe?
...find a better way across the chasm?
...turn back?
...build a new bridge, using your ropes and tools (if you have any)?"
Etc..
"You come across a ravaged and old bridge, apparently not very safe. %s stares at the gaping abyss in fear, urging the group to find a better way around the chasm.
Do you...
...cast an Increase Courage spell?
...try to convince %s that the bridge is safe?
...find a better way across the chasm?
...turn back?
...build a new bridge, using your ropes and tools (if you have any)?"
Etc..
Yeah that is obvious too. A computer GM is limited to what it has been programmed to deal with. The better the game designers the more that will be but but eventually any CRPG will meet its limits. That is why you have to keep buying new games.
And like I said in another thread the advantage of a computer GM is that you can have incredibly complex game mechanics since you never have to roll dice, look up tables and everything is done instantaneously. Unfortunately that advantage is never made full use of.
elander_
Arbiter
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 2,015
That raises the old question that if its essential for computers to copy the model of pnps or if this model is only important for pnps who lack the simulation capabilities of a computer. I can roleplay pnps with very little stats (in fact its better that way in a pnp). My favorite char system GURPS has plenty of perks, quirks and reaction offsets but very little stats. I personaly prefer turnbase in computer rpgs not because having too many stats is essential (except for skills, perks and things that can personalize a char) but because im a little biased to turn-based tactical combat.
Bradylama said:
Accurately? Mount & Blade? No way. What makes you think it's accurate anyway? It's not a bad implementation but the on-foot combat is nowhere near realistic (assuming realism is what you mean by accuracy).
Bradylama said:
Impossible? I disagree. Has it ever been tried before, a party-based real-time game with party dynamics? That it hasn't is answer to why it can be done in RT. Also, is controlling all party members the end all be all? I agree that for complete control over party, you can't go anywhere with real-time, but otherwise calling it impossible is just a narrow view.
suibhne said:
You are falling for the "reflexes" mistake in my opinion. Real-time doesn't have to equate into reflex-based gameplay or controls. With the right system, giving the choice to the player at right moments with enough time to make a decision is certainly possible. Span of this decision-making time might be shorter than in a TB, but by its nature, the player would adapt to that kind of gameplay without being enslaved to the reflexes.
I believe that RT, depending on the perspective of RT, can do a better job of responding to character skill than TB when done right. Especially in melee combat, but I agree that this can not be generalized to all RT perspectives. That it hasn't been done so far isn't an indication to anything. It's less likely to have control over whether you can try to dodge or parry an attack in TB then in a RT as well.
I love both TB and RT, however I find flawed game mechanics in a TB game a lot less forgiving in terms of playability, so I may take a flawed RT game over a flawed TB game.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.