Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • 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.

You're all autists

Drowed

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
1,676
Location
Core City
Yeah, I know, it's just funny. It's one of the reasons why turn-based games don't match very well with a very "realistic" look, it totally destroys the aspect of simulation and imagination and creates this "puppet" effect simulating results in an inescapably incoherent way. That said, there are better ways to simulate this miss other than the way XCOM decided to show it.
 

barghwata

Savant
Joined
Sep 13, 2019
Messages
504
I don't micromanage anything. Combat runs so smoothly when I'm playing a RtwP game.

Yea that's because most rtwp rpgs are piss easy, so much so that you can let party AI handle most encounters and you will still be fine.
 
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,509
Location
The Present
This is how RPGs should be, they are somehow random, but the randomness can be easily swayed in favor of a character, by improving that character relevant stats and skills.

That's easily done. You just add more dice. Instead of Roll XdY+Z, you roll XdY and take the highest. This allows you to represent natural ability by the size of the dice and degree of practice with the number of dice rolled without torturing the range. D&D finally figured this out with the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Too bad they didn't take it further.
 

Saduj

Arcane
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
2,547
I play TB games almost exclusively and I can count the number of games with what I consider to be annoying enemy turn lengths on one hand. And I'm not particularly patient.

It is all a matter of opinion but I don't think anyone's lack of patience is a good argument for the superiority of RTwP.
 

Mexi

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
6,811
I don't micromanage anything. Combat runs so smoothly when I'm playing a RtwP game.

What turnbase game is hard? They're all piss easy, hence why they give you an eternity to make a move. And don't give me that, oh you never played an unoptimized build, soloing, unfair, while having a piece of ham covering your left eye bullshit.
 

Butter

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
7,522
Wait, so turn-based games give you an eternity per move BECAUSE they're piss easy? Shouldn't it be the other way around? The easier the game, the less time you need per move?
 

King Crispy

Too bad I have no queen.
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
1,876,560
Location
Future Wasteland
Strap Yourselves In
Turn-based combat is obviously supposed to replicate the interaction between you and the game's master, DM, etc. Had it not been for the eventual adoption of roleplaying games by the computer industry, nothing but turn-based resolution of combat would have ever been possible. You can't, as a tabletop group, all blurt out what you want to do simultaneously, but a phased or round robin approach allows everyone involved to present their actions for resolution one at a time.

So one has to ask: is it really better to do away with that human limitation of only being able to communicate with one other person/player at a time when the computer can handle it all with ease? Is it the inevitable evolution of fantasy or sci-fi roleplaying to have everything occur in real-time, with the occasional pause, of course, when combat is taking place?

Let me ask you this: why, if so, isn't dialogue handled in this fashion in computer roleplaying games? Have you ever tried to understand what's going on in a game that has multiple characters or NPC's talking at once? I mean isn't this perfectly possible to do in "real life", the only thing stopping it being an understanding between people that our brains can't parse two or more streams of language coming at us at once? Ask yourself, as well, how human communication settled on waiting your turn to speak.

It is true that fully realistic combat cannot occur in anything but real time. And if that's what you seek, I submit that you're not really interested in playing what I'd call a true roleplaying game. We accept that combat is broken down into phases for purposes of fully controlling it, fully comprehending what's going on on a micromanaged level. If micromanagement is not your thing, then you're clearly a fan of something other than turn-based combat. If you, however, relish all the small decisions, all the tactical nuances of what would otherwise be a fog-of-war shrouded mess, then you prefer turn- and phase-based. You wouldn't have it any other way.

Obviously, it's a design decision. Most RPGs that have attempted to incorporate both RT or RTwP and turn-based together have failed miserably. The two are basically mutually exclusive, just like a crowd of people all speaking at once and a meaningful conversation are mutually exclusive.

It's rather ironic that a considerable aspect of "reality" has to be conceded in the use of turn-based combat in order for it to work, which actually results in a more detailed outcome.
 

Ol' Willy

Arcane
Zionist Agent Vatnik
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
24,568
Location
Reichskommissariat Russland ᛋᛋ
Thread quickly turned into "Fallout/Jagged Alliance 2/Underrail/AoD is too hard to me, TB sucks!111" retarded whining. Thankfully, the majority of mouthbreathers claiming TB to be stupid are already wearing the badge

dumbfuck.gif
 

Curratum

Guest
When the developer decides to go for up close and persona with the camera, he really should also make the combat phase based, so that that kind of presentational stupidity does not occur. Or keep the camera up in the sky and leave the events to be abstract.

That said, I don't really care about if see things like that in a game. With TB it is (almost) always about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen.

You're one of the only respectable people in this thread, so I'll respond to your posts.

My issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.

This is why I'll always prefer a game that is real-time over a turn-based system. A modern PC game is neither a tabletop RPG, nor a Gold Box game running on a 7 mhz and 256 kb ram system. Those games were only ever produced this way because of the limitations of hardware. However, people developed an unhealthy obsession with the turn-based style over the years and many successful turn-based games and now they can't pull their head out of their rear ends.
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
19,109
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
Just had a friend link that to me.

I have nothing further to add to this thread.

MediumFemaleBlacklab-size_restricted.gif

That is funny, but the thing is, it looks stupid since a TB scenario is suppsoed to simulate a realtime event that focuses on singular moments in time. I.e. the alien in the gif, as per the realtime iteration of the situation, is "moving" and the sorldier is reacting to the situation where the alien has just come to his face, or is in close combat position already doing its own maneuvers. And hence the miss.

When the developer decides to go for up close and persona with the camera, he really should also make the combat phase based, so that that kind of presentational stupidity does not occur. Or keep the camera up in the sky and leave the events to be abstract.

That said, I don't really care about if see things like that in a game. With TB it is (almost) always about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen.
This.

The same situation (miss from 1 tile away) wouldn't be as distracting in game with 8-bit graphics and minimal animations.
People would still scream "how could you miss that", but they could shrug it of by thinking that maybe there's some struggle going on and accepting that they're dealing with an abstraction of one of most pant shittingly intense situations imaginable.
 

Risewild

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
491
Location
Australia
y issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.
I think that the problem here is that some players do prefer the abstraction, they prefer to use their imagination instead of seeing the same non abstract thing over and over.

For example, a game that is in real time, 1st person game. You see things close and personal, action is real time. It reaches a point where every chair looks exactly the same, with the same hole in it, with the same color, etc. So we see the world doesn't have much diversity. Most objects are the same, if we're luck there might be 2 to 5 different models of doors, plates, chairs, computers, etc.
While in a turn-based, isometric game for example, we know that what we see is abstract, it usually uses descriptive text to tell us that this chair, while similar to all other chairs on the screen, actually has a hole, while another chair that on screen looks the same doesn't have one.

The same with combat, if we have a real time game, all the animations are the same, all actions are displayed the same, and it's always the same. And since it's not abstract anymore, it gets old fast. Oh look my guy just dodged exactly the same way it always does, it pulled the trigger holding his pistol the same old way, injected this stimpak exactly the same way and in the same spot on his arm as usual.

Even real time games have to have some abstraction so it doesn't feel as repetitive and same-y.

Well, there is also one other point, nothing prevents people from making a turn-based RPG with animations for dodge, parry, hit, miss, etc. It would probably even look better, since it's a turn based, so the animations have time to fully play before the character is already being hit/missed again. For example, I remember that NWN reached a point where the character could have so many attacks that it would only show animations for a few, the rest would just not play and the damage would just be dealt to the enemy if it hit. And it would be the same for the character being hit, dodging or parrying. It looked dumb to be honest.
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
19,109
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
My issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.
I think you're overestimating developer's and their tools capabilities and inclinations.
Computing power may have increased but you're still going to deal with some sort of ruleset with (perhaps) prettier graphics and maybe some limited physics simulation on top of it.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
My issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.

If this were currently true, then we should be able to point to many real-time games that demonstrate such rich fidelity with material reality, that few people would even be interested in TB to begin with. Except that's not true. A massive amount of real-time gaming is still built on arcadey foundations & involves mashing buttons at monoilthic hitboxes and mashing buttons for iframes - i.e. elaborate quick time events. We need to remember how so much of our real-time presentation involves "abstractions". Not to mention abstraction at level of input devices. If you want to say that removing abstractions leads to superior gameplay, then let's actually account for the different kinds of abstraction.

But even that fundamental assumption is a strange one. It suggests that formal abstractions are an inferior compromise when exact mimicry is not available, to be gently taken out and shot in the back when it is no longer needed. But why? Abstractions are great in a number of ways. They allow us to represent something in a different way and create a new experience out of it. We don't stop telling stories about Japan after we visit Japan in person. An abstracted simulation of a medieval battle, whether TB or not, allows us to have an experience of the battle in ways that a dogmatically 'realistic' first-person shaky-cam etc etc setup could not provide. And humanity has always enjoyed abstractions for both their references to reality and their unique nature as abstractions, from chess to art.

I don't think the purpose of video games is to represent mountains and pixels at highest possible fidelity, any more than the purpose of a movie is. I think video games should aspire to provide truly outlandish experiences that are impossible or rare in real life or other mediums, stretching the range of experiences available to us. There are games which do that stylistically, like Sanitarium. And if there is a problem with TB, then I would say it is a failure to innovate other interesting and unique abstractions, not a failure to 'stop abstracting'.
 

Curratum

Guest
My issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.

If this were currently true, then we should be able to point to many real-time games that demonstrate such rich fidelity with material reality, that few people would even be interested in TB to begin with. Except that's not true. A massive amount of real-time gaming is still built on arcadey foundations & involves mashing buttons at monoilthic hitboxes and mashing buttons for iframes - i.e. elaborate quick time events. We need to remember how so much of our real-time presentation involves "abstractions". Not to mention abstraction at level of input devices. If you want to say that removing abstractions leads to superior gameplay, then let's actually account for the different kinds of abstraction.

But even that fundamental assumption is a strange one. It suggests that formal abstractions are an inferior compromise when exact mimicry is not available, to be gently taken out and shot in the back when it is no longer needed. But why? Abstractions are great in a number of ways. They allow us to represent something in a different way and create a new experience out of it. We don't stop telling stories about Japan after we visit Japan in person. An abstracted simulation of a medieval battle, whether TB or not, allows us to have an experience of the battle in ways that a dogmatically 'realistic' first-person shaky-cam etc etc setup could not provide. And humanity has always enjoyed abstractions for both their references to reality and their unique nature as abstractions, from chess to art.

I don't think the purpose of video games is to represent mountains and pixels at highest possible fidelity, any more than the purpose of a movie is. I think video games should aspire to provide truly outlandish experiences that are impossible or rare in real life or other mediums, stretching the range of experiences available to us. There are games which do that stylistically, like Sanitarium. And if there is a problem with TB, then I would say it is a failure to innovate other interesting and unique abstractions, not a failure to 'stop abstracting'.

Now then, I'm not saying removing abstractions leads to superior gameplay, it just leads to gameplay I like a lot more. Feel free to tag with popamole. I tend to enjoy the immediacy and pace that comes with non-turn-based gameplay a lot more.

As for shooting abstractions in the back of the head and throwing them out - turn-based games can still be charming and fun. I did enjoy Wasteland 2 sufficiently before it started hard-crashing 100% of the time in the same place... It's just that the interface, interactions and presentation in games as old as the original Fallouts is juuuust sooooo daaaaamn painful.
 

Ol' Willy

Arcane
Zionist Agent Vatnik
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
24,568
Location
Reichskommissariat Russland ᛋᛋ
The same situation (miss from 1 tile away) wouldn't be as distracting in game with 8-bit graphics and minimal animations.
This could be slightly different. E.G., in Fallout, when you miss at point-blank distance the question that arises most often is "what the fuck, how can he miss that?!"; when in Age of Decadence you see dodging animation and see the reason why you missed.

Someone should make AoD dodging gif for quick response to the alien bullshit gif from above.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
4,228
My issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.

If this were currently true, then we should be able to point to many real-time games that demonstrate such rich fidelity with material reality, that few people would even be interested in TB to begin with. Except that's not true. A massive amount of real-time gaming is still built on arcadey foundations & involves mashing buttons at monoilthic hitboxes and mashing buttons for iframes - i.e. elaborate quick time events. We need to remember how so much of our real-time presentation involves "abstractions". Not to mention abstraction at level of input devices. If you want to say that removing abstractions leads to superior gameplay, then let's actually account for the different kinds of abstraction.

But even that fundamental assumption is a strange one. It suggests that formal abstractions are an inferior compromise when exact mimicry is not available, to be gently taken out and shot in the back when it is no longer needed. But why? Abstractions are great in a number of ways. They allow us to represent something in a different way and create a new experience out of it. We don't stop telling stories about Japan after we visit Japan in person. An abstracted simulation of a medieval battle, whether TB or not, allows us to have an experience of the battle in ways that a dogmatically 'realistic' first-person shaky-cam etc etc setup could not provide. And humanity has always enjoyed abstractions for both their references to reality and their unique nature as abstractions, from chess to art.

I don't think the purpose of video games is to represent mountains and pixels at highest possible fidelity, any more than the purpose of a movie is. I think video games should aspire to provide truly outlandish experiences that are impossible or rare in real life or other mediums, stretching the range of experiences available to us. There are games which do that stylistically, like Sanitarium. And if there is a problem with TB, then I would say it is a failure to innovate other interesting and unique abstractions, not a failure to 'stop abstracting'.

When you want to brofist twice, but you can't.

Obsession with photorealism is a plague in media. Everything needs to be in your face, everything needs to be like in real life, there is no place for subtlety. I really hate how this trend cheapens any art.
 

Darth Canoli

Arcane
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
5,687
Location
Perched on a tree
If this were currently true, then we should be able to point to many real-time games that demonstrate such rich fidelity with material reality, that few people would even be interested in TB to begin with. Except that's not true. A massive amount of real-time gaming is still built on arcadey foundations & involves mashing buttons at monoilthic hitboxes and mashing buttons for iframes - i.e. elaborate quick time events. We need to remember how so much of our real-time presentation involves "abstractions". Not to mention abstraction at level of input devices. If you want to say that removing abstractions leads to superior gameplay, then let's actually account for the different kinds of abstraction.

But even that fundamental assumption is a strange one. It suggests that formal abstractions are an inferior compromise when exact mimicry is not available, to be gently taken out and shot in the back when it is no longer needed. But why? Abstractions are great in a number of ways. They allow us to represent something in a different way and create a new experience out of it. We don't stop telling stories about Japan after we visit Japan in person. An abstracted simulation of a medieval battle, whether TB or not, allows us to have an experience of the battle in ways that a dogmatically 'realistic' first-person shaky-cam etc etc setup could not provide. And humanity has always enjoyed abstractions for both their references to reality and their unique nature as abstractions, from chess to art.

I don't think the purpose of video games is to represent mountains and pixels at highest possible fidelity, any more than the purpose of a movie is. I think video games should aspire to provide truly outlandish experiences that are impossible or rare in real life or other mediums, stretching the range of experiences available to us. There are games which do that stylistically, like Sanitarium. And if there is a problem with TB, then I would say it is a failure to innovate other interesting and unique abstractions, not a failure to 'stop abstracting'.

Don't cast pearls before swine, your wisdom is wasted on them.

Besides, they can't focus their attention long enough to read you if they don't have buttons to mash simultaneously.
 

Sykar

Arcane
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
11,297
Location
Turn right after Alpha Centauri
y issue with TB is that it's exactly that - "about interpretation of the situation, not what's literally going on on the screen". This is great for tabletop games where there is no animated screen. However, computer games today have the power and technology to present things on the screen as they happen and the need for turn-based abstraction is no longer present.
I think that the problem here is that some players do prefer the abstraction, they prefer to use their imagination instead of seeing the same non abstract thing over and over.

For example, a game that is in real time, 1st person game. You see things close and personal, action is real time. It reaches a point where every chair looks exactly the same, with the same hole in it, with the same color, etc. So we see the world doesn't have much diversity. Most objects are the same, if we're luck there might be 2 to 5 different models of doors, plates, chairs, computers, etc.
While in a turn-based, isometric game for example, we know that what we see is abstract, it usually uses descriptive text to tell us that this chair, while similar to all other chairs on the screen, actually has a hole, while another chair that on screen looks the same doesn't have one.

The same with combat, if we have a real time game, all the animations are the same, all actions are displayed the same, and it's always the same. And since it's not abstract anymore, it gets old fast. Oh look my guy just dodged exactly the same way it always does, it pulled the trigger holding his pistol the same old way, injected this stimpak exactly the same way and in the same spot on his arm as usual.

Even real time games have to have some abstraction so it doesn't feel as repetitive and same-y.

Well, there is also one other point, nothing prevents people from making a turn-based RPG with animations for dodge, parry, hit, miss, etc. It would probably even look better, since it's a turn based, so the animations have time to fully play before the character is already being hit/missed again. For example, I remember that NWN reached a point where the character could have so many attacks that it would only show animations for a few, the rest would just not play and the damage would just be dealt to the enemy if it hit. And it would be the same for the character being hit, dodging or parrying. It looked dumb to be honest.

Everything healing related is a huge abstraction and concession because 99% of the characters would die somewhere between the first and fifth combat encounter, if they are lucky.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom