I don't understand these arguments. I played Baldur's Gate when I was 11 or 12 and I had no problem understanding what was going on. I'm not a genius with a supernatural ability to understand baldur's gate combat... I mean, how do people who find BG and IWD to be incomprehensible clickfests even play TB games? On easy difficulty? Story mode?
TB isn't necessarily more refined. In fact, most TB systems in CRPGs are way less refined than RTwP. If you have grid for movement and move+action turn, you'll never come anywhere close to the freedom of RTwP. Only the systems that have gridless movement and fine-grained AP cost for abilities are (sometimes) good, and they're relatively uncommon.
For a ranged character, it's often the difference between "barely in range" and "just out of reach". Of course, if you always have to fight in small claustrophobic rooms, it doesn't matter, but the freedom of movement is a big deal in any well-designed game.
Of course, it's so great to redo a long difficult fight where you did alright until a single misclick ruined everything. /s
Just because some people can't handle RTwP, doesn't mean no-one can. I'm doing fine. There are some RTwP games with poorly designed combat systems (e.g. DA:I and SCL) but it has nothing to do with RTwP itself.
The IE games proved that it does work. Like I wrote above, we can't expect the developers to always translate the inherently TB systems into RTwP. Nevertheless, such translation is possible, and RTwP works just fine.
RTwP made the IE games great. It happened accidentally (because the engine was indeed re-purposed), but the fact remains. Most TB games were so bad back then that I probably would've never considered playing BG if it were TB.
Imagine citing a bunch of DOS games and Blobbers as proof that RPGs were so much better TB before BG came out.
In the late 1990s, I mostly played Diablo and Command & Conquer games and felt completely indifferent towards pretty much all TB games. I bought BG only because it was RTwP, believe it or not.
He's citing games with a high pedigree as proof that TB is a tried-and-true combatfag system. Aren't you the guy that thinks Underrail is amazing? Imagine Underrail RTwP.
No, they're just eager to gain kool kid kodex cred, itschon is a massive underrail fan.
Eeryone who advocates against eating shit has very little experience with eating shit.
Yes, but why would I want to convince anyone? I know that RTwP is here to stay because enough people genuinely enjoy it (and I'm one of them).
I know, and I think it's hilarious because all the games he listed are ass when compared to the Renaissance-era RPGs. None of the games he listed are proof that RTwP/IE games are for RPG casuals lmao.
Underrail is amazing, one of the best RPGs of all times and of course it would be much worse if it was RTwP. Y'all seem to be misunderstanding my point. I don't think RTwP is superior to TB, what I'm saying is that different games/systems require different combat systems, and just making a RTwP game turn based wouldn't automatically be an improvement. Flip your analogy around. Imagine if IWD or BG were TB. They would be completely different games, and they'd definitely be worse off for it.
How does someone saying, "I enjoyed the way RTwP was impleneted in the IE games, and they wouldn't have worked nearly as well if they featured a TB combat system" a nonsensical argument? What part of the statement I just said could you disagree with?
Being able to easily win battles doesn't mean you understand the combat mechanics; it just means that the game is so easy you can win with left-click and autoattack. Take for example the initiative/weapon speed/attacks in a round debate that has been going on for years. It's because a) the manual says one thing and b) the game does another while failing to provide relevant information.
