What happened to turn based games?

[Gimli]

https://www.firingsquad.com/games/tbgameseditorial/

 

It's an old article, but very interesting.

 

Just because everyone does something, doesn't mean they are right. What's better, a manual transmission or an automatic? The manual. In general, they are more reliable, more fuel efficient, they help accelerate the car faster and they give the driver much more control over his vehicle. Even better, a manual transmission is much cheaper - as much as $1000 on some cars - than its lesser counterpart. An automatic does have some advantages - such as ease of learning and ease of use (especially in hilly/mountainous areas), but if more people took the time to learn manual, they would save themselves a fair bit of money and have more fun driving their cars.

 

I really like this comparison.

[FullAuto]

One of my favourite articles about my most beloved of genres.

[Gimli]

I forgot to say I stole it off of RPGCodex.

[Strong Bob]

...I really like this comparison.

 

Why? It doesn't make sense. The difference between Real-time and Turn-Based strategy games is a matter of taste, not practical application.

 

I may like turn-based games a lot better than real-time games, but I am not saying it's flat-out better.

 

...but if more people took the time to learn manual, they would save themselves a fair bit of money and have more fun driving their cars.

 

I like how this guy thinks everyone would have fun driving a standard transmission. I'm sorry, but I happen to be aware that different people enjoy different things. This article seems to presume that the reasoning for an RTS is not taste, but impatience, and seems to come close to attacking the genre for overuling TBS games.

 

TBS games do not fare well because the general taste in games does not fit with 'taking turns'. One could easily play one of the many board games we have out there (Which is often cheaper than any PC or console game that is new.) and have the same appeal.

[FullAuto]

The difference between Real-time and Turn-Based strategy games is a matter of taste, not practical application.

 

It's not just taste, they are actually different.

 

I like how this guy thinks everyone would have fun driving a standard transmission. I'm sorry, but I happen to be aware that different people enjoy different things.

 

He said 'more people' not 'everyone'. There is a difference. Different people do enjoy different things, but what the writer was pointing out is:

 

if more people took the time to learn manual

 

That is, if more people actually bothered to try TB games, they might find they actually like them better than RTS, but because RTS games are quicker and easier to play, and have better graphics and sound, they usually don't bother.

 

TBS games do not fare well because the general taste in games does not fit with 'taking turns'.

 

That's impatience as far as I am concerned. Turn-based strategy games actually often feature strategy. Real-time games struggle to make it beyond reactive tactics.

[Space Voyager]

It's not just taste, they are actually different.

He's not saying that they are the same. It's just that some like TB games and some like RT games.

 

And while the transmission analogy seems appealing it's wrong, except in the better control department. As with the transmission where one chooses when to shift the gear you can do the same with ending the turn. This only means that you have unlimited time to do so.

 

As for the efficiency I'd say it's the contrary. Really, real-time system drives you to be as efficient with the given time as possible. TB system gives you aplenty so you can slack all you want. I happen to like it that way, some might not.

[Bomb Bloke]

Real time does force you to use your time effectively, that's true. You can't just let your units/buildings sit around and do nothing while you ponder the next move or else you'll soon get over run.

 

Turn based games give you greater control over the game time however, because no matter how slow you are you've still got the ability to order your units exactly as you choose to. Let's face it, no matter how good you are you can't achieve that in real time (unless you're allowed to give out orders while the game is paused, as in Apocalypse).

 

Which is better? Well, technically speaking, real time mode is. It's more... realistic. It doesn't let you do the things turn based mode does (such as fit two tanks through a doorway in the space of a few seconds; reality dictates one must "waste" time waiting for the other to pass through first). A large part of the reason why there used to be more turn based games is because computers back then had trouble processing the actions of multiple units at once.

 

On the other hand, we're talking about games, and the point of games is to have fun. Games will only remain fun so long as their link to reality remains somewhat loose, but personal taste has a lot more effect on a given gamers opinion. Though unlike the technical aspect of things you have to actually play both types to have an opinion worth listening to.

[Matri]

So I'm guessing a proper comparison would be Tournament Chess vs Speed Chess?

 

If you're used to taking your time preparing, analyzing, planning and anticipating, then Speed Chess would probably overwhelm you.

 

If you're used to making snap decisions, adapting your strategies if and when the situation arises, well... Suffice to say you're going to be well and thoroughly whipped in long tournaments.

 

I think the transmission analogy is wrong. I'm not sure how it's done elsewhere, but here in this country you have to take your driving test in a manual. If a manual isn't available then it's postponed until one is.

 

In the end, it's really a combination of factors not least of which is personal preference and situation. Some games just don't feel right if played turn-based and some don't feel right if played real-time.

[Strong Bob]

That's impatience as far as I am concerned. Turn-based strategy games actually often feature strategy. Real-time games struggle to make it beyond reactive tactics.

 

"Impatience" just doesn't make any sense as an excuse, though. TBS games do not tend to make you "wait" often, as it demands attentions even if it shows the enemy's movement stage. You could use the same "impatience" excuse for people that play TBS games instead of RTS, because they would rather hit the "TURN" button and have their fleet built, as opposed to waiting five minutes for the spaceports to crank them all out. It's a moot point.

 

In fact... I don't think the "reality" situation applies here either. I once heard an argument between a TBS player and RTS player:

 

RTS: Since when did generals in war take turns in battle!? It's unrealistic!

TBS: So what is realistic about entire armies that train from scratch in mere seconds?

 

Sure, I wish more TBS games were made. I enjoy them very much. But they're simply not popular enough, and I feel it's a little bit childish to claim it's because of other's faults, as is implied throughout that article, and not simply a matter of taste.

[Bomb Bloke]

Now that I think about it, turn based strategies are still around on the hand held systems. Even though they offer a fair bit of grunt these days they don't yet offer interfaces that would allow for decent real time (even the NDS with it's stylus suffers from a lack of screen space - for that sort of thing, anyway).

[KoMik]

I don't want new games, I want developed games. I mean, released game's gameplay should include familiar but developed features, mechanics and systems - and it should be playable and interesting from the begin to the end, of course. I don't mind if is it TB or RT.

 

Hopefully developers just keep on developing and don't pull off familiar (ex-gen?) systems from their list... I think, there is still room for developing and new innovations in every genre. Nothing is perfect, never. We are living in the incomplete world.

 

P.S. Matter of tastes could be argued till the end of the world, so I won't go there...

P.P.S. I think turn-based are better!

[Strong Bob]

Now that I think about it, turn based strategies are still around on the hand held systems.

 

Technically speaking, they're around on all the console style RPGs that use a menu interface. (Although I have a hard time calling those genuine TBS games, it cannot escape the definition.) So it's still there, but in a substantially less refined fashion.

 

Rebelstar, for example. Despite being highly influenced by X-COM, it doesn't even come close to being as streamlined in it's interface as X-COM was. Not only that, the game itself is poor by comparison. It's as if the handheld systems have lots of "catching up" to do if they wish to contest 15+ year old TBS games...

 

P.S. Matter of tastes could be argued till the end of the world, so I won't go there.

 

There is absolutely no argument in the matter of "taste". I have my own interests, and you have yours. There is nothing else to it. I am curious as to what you would argue in this matter...

[KoMik]

I am curious as to what you would argue in this matter...

You are right, there is nothing to argue about, at least I hope so. They usually just end up to "I'm not fast and furious enough vs this is boring and unrealistic - matches".

 

When making TB or RT game, they could/should be developed by focusing to strengths what makes TB or RT action interesting and fun. If the main goal is to make strategy game which includes hundreds of units, meant to be fast, there's lots of happening at the same time and it should be as realistic as possible, then RT. If the main goal is to make game where player is allowed to focus one unit/character at time, there's lots of different possibilities for movements/actions and micro-management (verry untrendiszh ), then TB. I think both are fun if made well and with good "taste".

 

I do not go to single character games, because, after all, this the StrategyCore.

[Space Voyager]

Perhaps I'm weird (but I guess not because if a lot of people like the "weird" it becames the norm) but my VERY BEST OF games so far were the ones that weren't TB only or RT only but included both! And that includes X-COM!

 

Funny enough X-COM went for RT strategy and TB tactics while most other went the other way and reversed the situation, as seen in Total War series.

[KoMik]

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro!

[NKF]

Does it really matter what category the game pigeon-holes into? Real-time, real-time-with-pause, real-time-with-pause-and-time-compression, traditional turn-based (ala board and card games), simultaneous movement turn-based (ala X-Com), sequential turn based (moves of each unit qeued by speed in seqence, but otherwise taking turns) or turn based with turns that are enacted in short bursts of real-time, etc?

 

I mean, does it matter what the designer decides to come up with as long as it is executed well and you enjoy yourself? If you find yourself having fun and you can play the game comfortably, then the game has achieved some measure of success, hasn't it?

 

Wonder what chess would be like if each piece were allowed to make one move or attack (but not both) per turn? Would need a larger board. Maybe combine a few pieces unique to Chinese chess in for variety (like the king's rifle, and the cannons).

 

- NKF