They weren't bad, that's for sure, but was the RTwP combat that made them good? Because i see people in both sides of the arguement saying shit like defending RTwP with Darklands, NWN2 and Torment and TB with Ultimas, Fallouts and Arcanum ffs.
Yes, you can have a great game with mediocre or even outright bad combat, but i fail to see how that somehow proves anything in the RTwP vs TB arguement
No they were good because they were interesting and fun to play. Any game could be good with either system, or be bad if the system is shitty. RTwP is not inherently shit, and TB is not necessary slow like a snail.
Fallout is a example where the system was very simple and even made bad, but the game was fun in all aspects. In Darklands i hated the RT. Arcanum made neither system good and yet i love this game.
Blaine said:
In other words, you're stretching the definition of RTwP as far as possible (and farther, really) in order to include more than a handful of games that weren't shit and that didn't have shit combat, not to mention trying to set arbitrary date constraints to try to exclude, say, the Gold Box games and earlier Ultimas from the TB camp.
Not quite. RT may be called RTwP, where the Pause is simply in all dimensions zero. Or one can say RTwP is RT, if the RT recives a vector Pause and this vector is not zero in all dimensions. Quite simple. We can argue what is the subset of what, but this is pure nonsens. The time point is not arbitrary i use it from Fellipepe's classification. And if you look back at the history of RPGs you see that in the early 90s the RPG with RT do appear and later take the gross of the RPGs, while in the 80s there are nearly only TB RPGs. I think i can remember one RT RPG in the 80s on the Amiga, but i have forgotten the name. But i think that the earliest RT strategy RPG was Bokosuka Wars in 1983.
StaticSpine said:
Dark Souls can't be paused.
Thank you. Then Dark Souls is a true RT without the vector Pause. Is that so, that Dark Soul is half multiplayer game where every player may play an instance of the game or where you can receive help from other players from other instances?
tuluse said:
However, I disagree with your definition. Calling something real time with pause implies that pausing is part of the gameplay. You can pause Starcraft, but you can't issue orders or make any decisions. You're stopping gameplay, not using pause as a feature of it. Thus, I would only include games where you can interact while pausing
The RT is a false name, it should be called continous time game. But the name addresses the RT of the player (not the game time which can go faster or slower then the normal seconds), where the player has continuously to adapt himself in Real Time to the continuously developing situation. While you stop the game play and you cannot react within the game, you do continue to use your brain and etc. And a Pause stops this only this continuous development, and the necessity of the adaptation of the player in RT. Starcraft is a good example where a pause helps you with the game, but where you do not issue commands in this time. If i have played Starcraft against an other opponent nobody did ever paused the game, because of this reasons. (I dont know if this was even possible.) In Starcraft Tournaments definitely not.
I think that the true examples of RT without Pause are MMORPG and then as you stated Dark Souls. In other cases the pause helps you with the game, no matter if can or cannot interact.