The problem with turn-based games is the only "tactics" are the builds.

[Ol' Willy]

I've never played a turn-based game that isn't equivalent to playing chess where you know the AIs first 5 moves. It usually goes like this: you start a game not knowing any of the systems and at first. It's fun to figure out what works, but within a few hours you "crack" the game and it becomes braindead.

Just play chess then. As of yet, as far as I'm aware, it's still not cracked.
Expecting vidya to scratch that itch is pants on head retarded.

Chess is learning openings and end games ad nauseam in this day and age.
Utter shite.

You can't really dry learn the endspiel, you need to understand what are you doing. Too many possible combinations

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I've never played a turn-based game that isn't equivalent to playing chess where you know the AIs first 5 moves. It usually goes like this: you start a game not knowing any of the systems and at first. It's fun to figure out what works, but within a few hours you "crack" the game and it becomes braindead. Usually, the very first area in a game is the most difficult before you figure out what works and repeat it ad nauseum. Essentially you abuse the very predictable AI, and the actual tactical puzzles are very few.

They give you movement limitations as if the game ever truly takes advantage of them. Increasing difficulty only limits viable builds and game styles without doing much of anything to improve on the puzzles because the only real puzzle is builds and repeating the same tactic over and over once you figure it out.

Peak of gaming are games like doom eternal and dark souls series. Yes, the adventures in codex beloved games like fallout, bg2, etc... are great but the gameplay is basically witcher 3. You are all hypocrites. Nearly all the top 100 rpg codex games suffer exact same problem as Witcher 3 and just because the game is "turn-based" does not make it any less braindead. Instead of spamming left click, you spam the same "tactic" in turns as if it makes any meaningful difference.

I am sure turn-based games where every fight is a puzzle at every turn exists (like chess), I just haven't found it. I am not saying real time are much better (Witcher 3 says hello), but at least I've played quite a few well-designed gameplay loops in RT games. Perhaps forcing quick decision making in a real time fight makes for a much easier puzzle design set up for meaningful combat.

Cope in comments to your hearts content.

Why do you think video games should be like chess?

Chess is a mental sport of sorts, where you pit your skills against other people. Which is ok, people obviously enjoy sports of various types, but video games are nothing like sports in general (minus a few genres like Starcraft-like RTS, MOBAs, online shooters, etc).

Video games in general, on the other hand, are much more about being immersed into a cool alternate reality, where you can do all sorts of cool shit you cannot do in real life. As far as that goes, enemies in video games should be somewhat challenging, to keep up the facade of being in a real, dangerous world, but it definitely doesn't need to be anything like chess.

 

[gabel]

I've never played a turn-based game that isn't equivalent to playing chess where you know the AIs first 5 moves. It usually goes like this: you start a game not knowing any of the systems and at first. It's fun to figure out what works, but within a few hours you "crack" the game and it becomes braindead.

Just play chess then. As of yet, as far as I'm aware, it's still not cracked.
Expecting vidya to scratch that itch is pants on head retarded.

Chess is learning openings and end games ad nauseam in this day and age.
Utter shite.

You can't really dry learn the endspiel, you need to understand what are you doing. Too many possible combinations

Depends on how many and which pieces are left.

 

[Silverfish]

Peak of gaming are games like doom eternal

If you liked circle-strafing, you'll love circle-strafing while switching weapons every 20 seconds.

 

[MerchantKing]

Chess is learning openings and end games ad nauseam in this day and age.
Utter shite.

Go to lichess and play an anonymous unranked game.

That's where you get matched with cheaters 95% of the time. It's lose/lose when you play chess. No way to have any fun at all.

 

[Takamori]

People underestimate turn based combat, devs for sure. Thinking they will save a lot of resources by not having to develop animation for action combat.
They end up ignoring that you need AI to be really good to challenge your players, you need an interesting character/squad building system to keep people hooked with what is going with whatever the player needs to manage constantly and finally the feedback from animations, fallout 1 and 2 got it right by adding those really well done flashy gory animations, so you finish the combat and receive something really badass as reward.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Ugh, Fallout's combat is an atrocity. In melee you can punch nigh anything to death with a 98 lbs weakling with no skills except to walk backwards the correct number of spaces after each attack. When ranged attacks happen it may as well be a slot machine, because crits ignore armour and cause instant death. In neither case does player skill or character stats really enter the picture- you're either cheesing the AI or cheesing the quicksave function. Better stats give the same results just faster.

More modern entries tend to have more refined systems with fewer loopholes; things like zones of control, attacks of opportunity, damage/resistance types, multiple defence layers, and so forth. There's definitely a lot of games out there that require you to think about combat on a regular basis, either to implement entirely different strategies or on how to accomplish your preferred one. Even if you've built your team around a really specific plan, like Guys A and B defend and heal while only C attacks and D buffs, there's always the question of how to do that most efficiently, as long as the devs were smart enough to reward that efficiency, and there's multiple types of efficiency to be had.

Now, ideally you could say all those things can apply to real time combat as well... but that never really happens, because players get super butthurt if their minimum dex lardass in gothic tournament plate can't avoid getting hit 100% of the time once they've gotten good enough at DDR. Which is not to say RPG elements don't suit a real time action game at all, just that they should be less focused on stats and more focused on gameplay elements like enabling different types of AoE attacks, movement and defensive options, and utility functions like creating distractions, summoning minions, creating traps and so forth. The stat based power fantasy of getting your block/evade chance to 99% or killing everything in one hit before it can attack is fun for a few minutes then it becomes very dull indeed. Ultimately something like DMC does the action RPG thing better than something like Morrowind, at least where combat is concerned, because a double jump and a shotgun does a lot more to change your character than the ability to survive 50% more pecks from a cliffracer when you upgrade your armour or train your block skill. In both cases it's the character that got improved rather than the player, but the outcome is wildly different.

 

[Silverfish]

That's where you get matched with cheaters 95% of the time.

Not only do I cheat, but I also tell my opponents to king me just to rub salt in the wound.

 

[Yosharian]

People underestimate turn based combat, devs for sure. Thinking they will save a lot of resources by not having to develop animation for action combat.
They end up ignoring that you need AI to be really good to challenge your players, you need an interesting character/squad building system to keep people hooked with what is going with whatever the player needs to manage constantly and finally the feedback from animations, fallout 1 and 2 got it right by adding those really well done flashy gory animations, so you finish the combat and receive something really badass as reward.

Yeah good AI is really nonexistent in most modern games, not just RPGs

I always find it hilarious when devs say things like 'ah we had better AI but we had to tune it down because it was unfair' fuck off no you didn't.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I always find it hilarious when devs say things like 'ah we had better AI but we had to tune it down because it was unfair' fuck off no you didn't.

Eh, depends on the genre. There's plenty where fighting against good AI would be simply unfun.

 

[laclongquan]

The problem of turnbased tactical game is the limited number of variable. Once you push it up, the variant moves will increase.
One recognizable method to do so is destructible terrains. All TB tactical game use this is hard. Like Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, SS Sentinels, and Hammer Sickle.
Obviously, the complaint about too hard will increase, as most TB gamers dont actually enjoy that kind of hard diff.
Thus destructible terrains stop at HS. No one else use it again~
Remind me again: does JA3 use destructible terrain?

 

[huskarls]

Play Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen, @King Crispy.

No. We're talking about RPGs here, fork. Go away.

RPG Codex voted Dark Souls GotY 2011 2012 and voted Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen GotY 2012 2013 2016.

codex voted some shitty gothic mod goty. being made GOTY on codex is a warning sign for a game (as you continue to prove)

 

[Jvegi]

Word!

 

[Damned Registrations]

Word!

By this logic RTWP games are also shit because outcomes are determined by dice rolls instead of actual physics, so Mario is the better game and RPGs are for casuals.

Just because something is abstracted doesn't mean it lacks depth or complexity.

 

[Jvegi]

Word!

By this logic RTWP games are also shit because outcomes are determined by dice rolls instead of actual physics, so Mario is the better game and RPGs are for casuals.

Just because something is abstracted doesn't mean it lacks depth or complexity.

It's about the counterplay in the realm of the dice roll. Not beyond it.

Rtwp dispenses with the initiative curse, while preserving all the complexity of the dice based combat.

Just like card games are better on the computer, because you can compute better, without limits, rtwp is better, because the program does not need to wait for fleshlings to make their move.

They hated Jesus because he told them the truth.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Rtwp dispenses with the initiative curse, while preserving all the complexity of the dice based combat.

Except dice based combat isn't anywhere close to the pinnacle, because it's based on limitations of fleshlings rolling little chunks of plastic around on a table. Properly complex combat will involve things like complex 3D LoS calculations, hit locations, and factor in a dozen or more minor factors like terrain, weather, lighting, morale and so forth for every action. You don't see that in RTwP games, whether on a small scale like DnD based stuff, or a large scale like Total War. you see it in games like Troubleshooter, XCOM, or Shadow Empire.

RTwP games are designed for the ADHD crowd that just wants to watch dudes hit each other without actually controlling the battle in any meaningful way. It's literally just designed to allow for autopilot to look cooler.

 

[Butter]

It's sad how much BioWare's RTS engine still influences the discourse surrounding this genre.

 

[Jvegi]

RTwP games are designed for the ADHD crowd that just wants to watch dudes hit each other without actually controlling the battle in any meaningful way.

Have you ever actually played scs or any rtwp game seriously you silly child?

You are correct, actually. They are designed for that crowd. But they can be so much more when designed for actually skilled players, like in case of scs and iwd2.

On the other hand, when party tb games are trying to achieve high complexity , they hit a wall of initiative and cloud spamming. Toee and kotc are best at low levels. Scs and iwd2, and perhaps parhfinder, I wouldn't know, are best at high levels, when options for offence, defence and counterplay are most numerous.

Pro tip for you. You are supposed to press the pause button at least 2 times a second. It's 12 decisions per round for each character.

 

[Damned Registrations]

On the other hand, when party tb games are trying to achieve high complexity , they hit a wall of initiative and cloud spamming.

I literally don't even understand what you're talking about. Cloud spamming? Why is initiative a problem to you?

RTwP ends up being retarded because you can just abuse the shit out of the AI by walking away from anything trying to melee you, or alpha striking enemies that don't react until combat starts and they've already eaten 6 fireballs or whatever. Even if you have no control over when the fight starts and can't just kite everyone, like in Total War games, you still have the issue of AI being way too easy to abuse and generally luring them into retarded positions.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

RTwP is good because it decreases the abstraction of time and provides a more visceral experience that can be both thoughtful and adrenaline inducing. TB has a nice tactical quality, but the action economy can give it a sterile and predictable nature. This could be partly overcome with sufficient AI, but that generally has not happened yet. SCS remains perhaps the base demonstration of AI in a CRPG and is RTwP. At a certain scale, RTwP can become a bit overwhelming.

All you people are limiting the discourse. You overlook one the most pure, if not purest expression of RTwP ever implemented. It's a true ground up system designed for PC usage and has no PnP tabletop baggage. I am of course speaking of the excellent Freedom Force. This game is pure tactics. It also has elevation, line of sight, environmental interactions, including destructible ones. It's all in true real time. That dimension is absolutely significant for executing actions and dodging. This game is proof that RTwP makes for good RPGs without becoming full simulation or succumbing to arcade & action mechanics. Developers just need to put their big boy pants on and remove the shackles of the tabletop legacy.

 

[Jvegi]

I literally don't even understand what you're talking about.

Clearly.

Try playing games that actually challenge your basic notions, then we can talk.

I've posted a video from one of the most acclaimed bg players ever. You've called it retarded.

You should try to kite something while being surrounded with cc coming from all sides and high value targets having to be killed asap.

Initiative is an issue, because at high levels the person moving first can nuke or diseable his opponent, with potentialy no counterplay. Cloud spamming refers to the fact that mass cc is usually the most efficient use of action against enemy that can not move. Because it is not his turn.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Try playing games that actually challenge your basic notions, then we can talk.

Try yourself, maybe?

You just keep going on about shit that is only applicable to DnD. If you can wipe out the entire enemy team before they can move, that's not a problem of initiative as a mechanic, it's a badly designed encounter. There's no reason you can't have enemies start a battle behind cover, too distant or hidden from view, or simply too powerful to kill in a single turn. Why would mass CC even be a fucking option in a game? That's retarded and obviously going to be too powerful whether you go first or not.

How the flying fuck am I getting surrounded in a RTwP game barring gross amounts of cheating, like teleporting my entire party into an ambush? Wow, so tactical, once my invisible rogue walked across the plot line my whole party appeared in a tiny room so the villain could attack us in a shit formation after a bad monologue. I really want to play that.

I've posted a video from one of the most acclaimed bg players ever. You've called it retarded.

Because it's a retarded take! FFT is an old turn based tactical game, and when an enemy gets their turn and starts casting a massive, powerful spell... you can interrupt them with attacks that do extra damage. You can spread out to avoid it, cast defensive spells to mitigate it, and so forth. It's just as dumb as saying you let someone hit you with a sword instead of trying to dodge because they rolled a 20 before swinging.

 

[Yosharian]

Word!

By this logic RTWP games are also shit because outcomes are determined by dice rolls instead of actual physics, so Mario is the better game and RPGs are for casuals.

Just because something is abstracted doesn't mean it lacks depth or complexity.

It's about the counterplay in the realm of the dice roll. Not beyond it.

Rtwp dispenses with the initiative curse, while preserving all the complexity of the dice based combat.

Just like card games are better on the computer, because you can compute better, without limits, rtwp is better, because the program does not need to wait for fleshlings to make their move.

They hated Jesus because he told them the truth.

Your man's stupid statement isn't even true. In 5E there is a spell called Counter spell, and in PNP you can prepare actions such as 'if the target starts spellcasting I will attack him'.

Turn-based can be just as fun and strategic as RTWP and you are a fucking moron for thinking otherwise.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

and in PNP you can prepare actions such as 'if the target starts spellcasting I will attack him'.

This is one reason why ToEE was so great. You could select "Ready vs" spell, attack, or approach for your turn. TB needs this to reach its potential. I don't think I ever saw it before or since. Does BG3 allows this kind of action?

 

[Butter]

and in PNP you can prepare actions such as 'if the target starts spellcasting I will attack him'.

This is one reason why ToEE was so great. You could select "Ready vs" spell, attack, or approach for your turn. TB needs this to reach its potential. I don't think I ever saw it before or since. Does BG3 allows this kind of action?

Pool of Radiance had Ready vs approach in 1988. Knights of the Chalice had Ready vs approach and Ready vs spell in 2009.