gurugeorge
Arcane
... off the back of the ToEE thread. Hardy perennial topic, I know, but it is quite interesting after all.
I love turn-based games with lots of quasi-simulationist options, the more the better as far as I'm concerned. But on the other hand, the more options, the more interdependent variables you have to juggle in your mind to make an optimal next move. So there's two aspects to it, or two filters: one is the sheer IQ test, but then even if you're like a pig in shit with the IQ test, when story enters the picture, there's the intersection between patience (or wanting to see a story unfold) and the puzzle of the present encounter (its good or bad design) holding your interest (or not).
There's definitely a tension at the heart of the very idea of the CRPG as soon as you bring story into the game. Bracketing character development and progression as their own things, story can be a fantastic element in a game, especially on the first run through - it can be really absorbing, and put you right into the virtual world, give you a sense of presence and immersion. But it can also become a chore you have to go through to get from one encounter to another.
In a tabletop context, the fun of warm human interaction takes up a lot of mindshare, and that can function to glue the two elements of story and encounter together in an organic way, such that the immersion you build up in the story isn't lost in the encounter, and vice-versa (e.g. your friends are there with you in the fight, egging you on in your victories or laughing at your pratfalls, and the same friends are with you as you explore the scary dungeon or tentatively query the Lich). And even good multiplayer games (NWN PWs or good MMOs) can do that too, to an extent.
But when you're sitting alone in front of a computer, all you've got is these two seemingly disparate elements of story and encounter, with one constantly in danger of interfering with the enjoyment of the other.
I think the one great advantage of RTwP is that it's a bit easier to join the two together. IOW, while turn-based gameplay is strictly better as absorbing combat gameplay, RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights (by letting your wee guys do their thing most of the time and letting the dice roll, just keeping an eye on things to make sure they don't get too out of hand), only slowing down into more intricate and interesting combat gameplay at points where the story reaches some kind of mini-climax or climax, and there's a hard fight that's well designed. (And RTwP played this way is even better if you have good AI conditionals that you can fiddle with to see how they play out in trash fights - it's a micro-hobby in itself.)
I won't say it's impossible to have deep turn-based combat with a good story, but the natural home of it does seem to be more in games that just have a cursory story that joins well-designed encounters together in some passably logical way. Now, having had PFK with the option to switch between either at will, it seems obvious that that is actually the ideal - but I guess it puts a lot of extra burden on developers (to the point that they're almost having to make 2 games concurrently), which is why we haven't seen much of it.
The funny thing about it is that it's all pretty accidental. As we all know (or should know ) the only reason anyone ever thought of RTwP in CRGPs was to copy the amazing success of Command & Conquer in transforming a formerly turn-based style of gameplay into quasi-action gameplay. It was a fad - and ironically, a fad for casuals at that.
But it just turns out that RTwP does have its own place and integrity, and works well with more story-heavy games.
I love turn-based games with lots of quasi-simulationist options, the more the better as far as I'm concerned. But on the other hand, the more options, the more interdependent variables you have to juggle in your mind to make an optimal next move. So there's two aspects to it, or two filters: one is the sheer IQ test, but then even if you're like a pig in shit with the IQ test, when story enters the picture, there's the intersection between patience (or wanting to see a story unfold) and the puzzle of the present encounter (its good or bad design) holding your interest (or not).
There's definitely a tension at the heart of the very idea of the CRPG as soon as you bring story into the game. Bracketing character development and progression as their own things, story can be a fantastic element in a game, especially on the first run through - it can be really absorbing, and put you right into the virtual world, give you a sense of presence and immersion. But it can also become a chore you have to go through to get from one encounter to another.
In a tabletop context, the fun of warm human interaction takes up a lot of mindshare, and that can function to glue the two elements of story and encounter together in an organic way, such that the immersion you build up in the story isn't lost in the encounter, and vice-versa (e.g. your friends are there with you in the fight, egging you on in your victories or laughing at your pratfalls, and the same friends are with you as you explore the scary dungeon or tentatively query the Lich). And even good multiplayer games (NWN PWs or good MMOs) can do that too, to an extent.
But when you're sitting alone in front of a computer, all you've got is these two seemingly disparate elements of story and encounter, with one constantly in danger of interfering with the enjoyment of the other.
I think the one great advantage of RTwP is that it's a bit easier to join the two together. IOW, while turn-based gameplay is strictly better as absorbing combat gameplay, RTwP gameplay is very suited to the CRPG context in the sense that you can stay immersed in the virtual world through most fights (by letting your wee guys do their thing most of the time and letting the dice roll, just keeping an eye on things to make sure they don't get too out of hand), only slowing down into more intricate and interesting combat gameplay at points where the story reaches some kind of mini-climax or climax, and there's a hard fight that's well designed. (And RTwP played this way is even better if you have good AI conditionals that you can fiddle with to see how they play out in trash fights - it's a micro-hobby in itself.)
I won't say it's impossible to have deep turn-based combat with a good story, but the natural home of it does seem to be more in games that just have a cursory story that joins well-designed encounters together in some passably logical way. Now, having had PFK with the option to switch between either at will, it seems obvious that that is actually the ideal - but I guess it puts a lot of extra burden on developers (to the point that they're almost having to make 2 games concurrently), which is why we haven't seen much of it.
The funny thing about it is that it's all pretty accidental. As we all know (or should know ) the only reason anyone ever thought of RTwP in CRGPs was to copy the amazing success of Command & Conquer in transforming a formerly turn-based style of gameplay into quasi-action gameplay. It was a fad - and ironically, a fad for casuals at that.
But it just turns out that RTwP does have its own place and integrity, and works well with more story-heavy games.