|Comment count is 18|
Why are they just standing around?
::incredibly awkward animations ensue::
Oh, it's one of THOSE kinds of games. The kind where the playerbase can't be asked to click too fast or it'll make their brain hurt, so they made it turn-based.
Pffft, go back to Call of Duty, Casual.
Assuming you aren't being a dang troll and deserve a serious response: turn-based vs real-time is the difference between playing chess and playing speed-checkers. One values depth of thinking, the other values speed. Evidently you prefer the checkers. That's fine. Other people prefer chess.
Don't hate the game just 'cause you can't hack it, man.
"Assuming you aren't being a dang troll and deserve a serious response: turn-based vs real-time is the difference between playing chess and playing speed-checkers. "
That's a very laughable comparison. A more apt one would be turn-based is regular checkers and real-time is speed-chess. Although, using two turn-based games to make a comparison versus turn-based and real-time games is also laughable, so I'm not sure which you should be more embarrassed about.
"One values depth of thinking, the other values speed."
Spoken like someone who's never gotten the hang of real-time games.
Actually, one values depth of thinking, and the other values depth of thinking AND skill at aiming AND ability to judge distances/projectile travel time AND situational awareness AND player control nuance.
The amount of calculations going on second-to-second in a competetive real-time game outweigh the amount of mental acuity and hand-eye coordination needed to play _any_ turn-based game.
It simply isn't necessary for a game in the turn-based genre. You could be quadriplegic and be pushing your cursor around with your chin and still be able to play a turn-based game. The fact that you have to make intelligent choices has nothing to do with the format of the game - in EVERY competetive game, real-time or turn-based, you are expected to make intelligent decisions - one simply gives you all the time in the world to do it, and the other expects you to be able to do it at a faster rate, and with actual physical variables that are constantly changing. In a turn-based game - when it's your turn? The rest of the world is at a dead stop. Nobody is dodging out of your way, nobody is firing back (unless you're in Civilization and your aircraft flies too close to an anti-aircraft gun - which is automatic and requires no input from your opponent).
Turn-based games are for your slower, aiming-impaired player who likes to have ample time before making any decision. They are safe, easy, and usually rely on numbers in an RPG-style manner to denote who wins and loses - there are no "skills" involved other than deciding when to attack, when to guard, when to use items/specials (if the game has them). That's about it. Some have elevation/declination considerations, but there aren't too many games that don't fit into this basic set of mechanics.
Now, I know you don't actually believe that turn-based games take more skill or mental fortitude - you just like being a contrarian. That's fine. But for anyone watching from the outside not aware of your schtick, I wouldn't want them to take anything you said seriously by mistake.
All the same planning, strategy, tactics, and preparation that goes into turn-based games have an equal (and more demanding) counterpart in real-time games, especially shooters.
Take Overwatch for instance - it combines all the hallmarks of modern-day "moba" games with the fast-paced gameplay of a shooter - but with well-balanced abilities and a boatload of unique ways for each class to counter other classes. It's a perfect example of a game that has all the depth and nuance of a stat-based "RPG" style system but happens completely in real-time.
"Don't hate the game just 'cause you can't hack it, man."
Anyone who's good enough to do well in a real-time game has the ability to do well in a turn-based game, if they give it the same attention - and the transition is a lot easier for them than it would for a turn-based player to suddenly be thrust in the world of real-time shooters or even real-time strategy. However, most people who are good at real-time action or shooter games find it hard to dumb down their experience and play something that requires so much less of them.
Me? I play turn-based games sometimes when I want to relax. It's far less demanding than the real-time games I own. For instance, I'm playing Lisa. It's pretty awful, but the music and absurdity are keeping me entertained. My main character just lost both his arms and is now going around biting and headbutting people.
""Evidently you prefer the checkers. That's fine. Other people prefer chess."
Implying that the deeper game exists solely in the turn-based genre, which is pretty indicative that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Watch some Overwatch top play compilations - it's everything about positioning and waiting for the right moment to strike, but with the added demand of actually needing to be good at maneuvering, aiming and split-second decision making.
Spoken like a person whose never gotten the hang of turn-based games.
You're right, though, in-so-far-as the comparison I drew was incomplete. I was trying to be generous, and give you a somewhat cerebral example that you could idnetify with. More properly, I should have said that turn-based vs real-time is like chess vs NASCAR, or chess vs football.
Some people like going ZOOOOOM in circles. Going ZOOOOM in circles requires "depth" of thinking (compared to what?), AND skill at aiming a car in the right direction, AND situational awareness, AND steering-wheel control. But would you claim that anyone who can drive a NASCAR vehicle in circles, must therefore also be able to crush it at chess?
No, of course not.
Like I said, *I'm* not trying to disparage you. You like quick games with shallow strategy that don't force you to think very deeply about the situation - in fact, by design, these games penalize you for thinking. You need to memorize rote build orders, hit hotkeys by muscle-memory, and shoot without thinking - and that is fine. Just fine. The best turn-based strategy game you could come up with is Civ - which really shows your level of experience with turn-based strategy, but, you know, again! That's fine. It's all fine.
You can play your Overwatch and your Myth and your twitch-shooters; me and my furrow-browed peers won't judge you. The world takes all types - brainiacs and jocks, chess-players and NASCAR drivers, masters and slaves - and there is nothing wrong with any of this.
Real time depends on you fortifying an optimum position and then the sloppy AI taking the enemy to a less than optimum position before you attack.
Turn based both sides seek the optimum position with the intent to stay there.
I prefer real time, because I suck at video games and need the AI to make the mistakes.
Wasteland dates back to the late 1980s, man. It originated as a turn based RPG. So..not sure where you're going with this, Gmork. It's kind of dumb.
"You're right, though, in-so-far-as the comparison I drew was incomplete. I was trying to be generous, and give you a somewhat cerebral example that you could idnetify with. More properly, I should have said that turn-based vs real-time is like chess vs NASCAR, or chess vs football."
That's a terrible comparison.
"Some people like going ZOOOOOM in circles. Going ZOOOOM in circles requires "depth" of thinking (compared to what?), AND skill at aiming a car in the right direction, AND situational awareness, AND steering-wheel control. But would you claim that anyone who can drive a NASCAR vehicle in circles, must therefore also be able to crush it at chess?"
You are certifiably retarded for forming that paragraph.
Not to mention Nascar and chess are aeons apart - whereas computer games and other types of computer games share far more similarities and overlap of skills. Learning stats, damage values, what counters what, etc. Those apply to both real-time and turn-based games. You're really not very knowledgeable, and you're speaking out of your depth.
" "Like I said, *I'm* not trying to disparage you."
Yes, you are. At every single possible juncture.
"You like quick games with shallow strategy that don't force you to think very deeply about the situation"
"in fact, by design, these games penalize you for thinking."
No, they don't. The deeper strategy is in learning how to outplay your opponent based on the games' mechanics. It's about outplaying your opponent, no matter how you try to minimize that. Just because it happens faster than in turn-based games doesn't denote a lack of thinking. I guarantee you the person who plays on pure instinct with no thought to strategy loses to the person who understands the meta-game based on what each player has (whether it be a class, a kit, a weapon, etc). The same meta-game exists in turn-based games, just with far fewer variables.
"You need to memorize rote build orders, hit hotkeys by muscle-memory, and shoot without thinking"
What the fuck is a "build order"? What game are you even talking about? Hotkeys? You're being far too specific in a genre that spans many, many gametypes. It almost sounds like you're describing Starcraft or some such. I don't play starcraft - felt like a cheap reskin of warcraft 2, and I got sick of that game before the 00's even came around.
Shoot without thinking? Couldn't be more off-base if you tried. I suggest educating yourself and watching some play-by-plays from the pros in Overwatch. The amount of timing, planning and skill necessary to pull off certain maneuvers are beyond the scope of anyone who relegates themselves solely to the world of turn-based hand-holding.
"The best turn-based strategy game you could come up with is Civ - which really shows your level of experience with turn-based strategy, but, you know, again! That's fine. It's all fine."
That wasn't "the best" turn-based strategy game I could come up with, so I'm not sure where you got that absurd notion - I brought up civ5 to illustrate an exception to a basic rule about turn-based games - the exception being that in certain turn-based games you can still take damage from an enemy even if it's still your turn (such as AA units in civ or units on "guard" that attack anyone within a radius who comes too close).
You are really reaching to use my offhand example that used civ5 as a reference as some kind of "proof" of anything other than I am aware of that games existence.
"You can play your Overwatch and your Myth and your twitch-shooters; me and my furrow-browed peers won't judge you. The world takes all types - brainiacs and jocks, chess-players and NASCAR drivers, masters and slaves - and there is nothing wrong with any of this."
There's nothing wrong with slavery?
Matlock - "How would a single player effectively control a squad in real time? The only way I could see is severely limiting each character's options, at which point you go from RPG to RTS."
Myth is a perfect example of a game that gives you anywhere from a handful to a hundred or more units and gives you complete control over them.
You can move in formation, you can split up and divide any group how you see fit, and lock them into presets which can change at whim.
You can also micromanage any individual unit at any time.
It has physics, 3d deformable terrain, weather, liquids, etc. It's basically Sun Tzu's Art of War in RTS form.
The game doesn't have base building of any sort - it's actually in a (relatively newly coined) genre called "real time tactical" although back when it came out the only label that fit was "real time strategy".
I do not currently know of a game that exists which takes more skill to be good at. It's a shame that games like Warcraft 2 overshadowed it because it appealed to the lazy mass-army-producing fort-building masses. I find Warcraft 2 / Starcraft to be only slightly more engaging than a tower defense game.
Then again I was spoiled. Still waiting for a game that comes even close to the unbridled carnage and grace that is Myth.
Oh - and for co-op and multiplayer team battles, the captain of a team can give (or take back) any amount of units at any time - meaning if someone lost their flank the captain could say "Here's an alcoholic explosive-lobbing dwarf and some warriors - go hold the pass" and mark an X on the overhead map for him.
Best team game - hell, best game I'll ever play in my life, without a doubt - unless Rockstar decides to reboot the series, and even then I'm skeptical.
There's nothing wrong with *voluntary* slavery. Plenty of consenting adults are into the BDSM community. Now, slavery is not my thing, of course; I, personally, could not fathom why anyone would voluntarily choose to entertain themselves by being a gimp slave - but, as with the equally bizarre RTS gamer community, I'm not disparaging anyone, and I recognize that the world accepts all types.
Civ V is a middle-brow turn-based game at best, and that you'd be bring it up at all indicates that you've little or no experience with turn-based strategy games of any significant depth; it's also hardly the best example of the concept of "taking damage on your own turn" (a concept of questionable importance indeed). XCom, for example? Killing or being killed through triggering overwatch shots is one of the key gameplay strategies. Or consider AoE attacks in Wasteland/ Fallout/ BaldursGate. Or status ailments that deal damage on the start of your turn! Or any number of a hundred other situations.
It's clear you don't know much about TBS games - which is a shame, because it means you may have jumped the gun and prematurely drawn a negative judgement about your ability to play them. It's also clear that you don't know much about *RTS games* either - if you think Myth is the best example of the genre, you are sorely mistaken. Back in Ye Olden Days, sure, it was a good game! But it was quickly superseded by the Total War series (the thinking man's RTS game, particularly since it has a turn-based Grand Strategy portion, and a "soft" turn-based, "pause & issue orders" feature), Company of Heroes, Command & Conquer/ Red Alert, and of course, Men of War, which is to Myth what Europa Universalis is to Civ V.
Also, the best "team game" is Europa Universalis played with alliances.
Wasteland 2 was good and all, but it was clearly a ripoff of Fallout 3.
Soooooo... is it going to work correctly out of the gate this time? Are there going to be more than, what 6 kinds of procedurally generated environments for random encounters? I don't really see the point in making up a bench of rendered characters for conversation if they go ahead and ship it with the same kind of crippling bugs the put the last one out with. Also, and call me crazy here, but I thought the story of the last one was, how you say, a bit shit.
|Sanest Man Alive |
Ooh, an actual nuclear winter! Maybe now those NCR jarheads will finally SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT
|Dr. Lobotomy |
I couldn't deal with Wasteland 2 ridiculously old school character system.
Having to spend 2 skill points just to get a skill from 0 to 1.
"Dead" level ups which you only bank points for a few levels before you can even invest them.
Min max like a motherfucker or suffer.
I just gave up and moved to another game rather than deal with that BS
I loved the old school Black Isle Studios RPGs, but Wasreland 2 was both ugly AND boring.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|