Which do you prefer? Turn based or real time?


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Which do you prefer? Turn-based or real-time? (82 member(s) have cast votes)

Which do you prefer? Turn-based or real-time?

  1. Turn-Based (57 votes [70.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.37%

  2. Real-Time (15 votes [18.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.52%

  3. Other (explain) (9 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Bunnysays

Bunnysays

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 11:43 PM

I voted TB.  There are certainly some games that I liked RT w/pause (say UFO:AM) but for the most part I would take TB.  The problem I have with RTPause is that, in a squad based game, it feels like I am just making a lasoo around my group and using them as sort of "one" complete guy and shooting.  As the enemies get tougher, it feels like I need to select say four or more guys at once to deal with the enemy.  So I am no longer moving individuals and making strategic decisions. Just bunching up the most guys that I can and shooting back.  That's what I felt like in UFO:AM and Xcom Apoc (which is why I used TB in that).  I find that in other games NOT squad-based, I like RTPause.  If you count it, for example, don't forget Rome: Total War.  I couldn't imagine playing something like that fully TB.  That game was the best mix of TB for overall movement, then RTS for battles.  Then again, imagine trying to play something like Civilization as an RTS.  That would just ruin it.  If I'm dealing with larger scales, I guess RTS seems a good choice, but for individuals, I want to have more and more control over them and have fun thinking of them as individual people that I am commanding.  In an RTS game, I never think of soldiers or people, but instead, "unit types or groups".

The only other issue that I have is that, there are plenty of RTS games out there.  Only a handful of TB nowadays (if you don't count TB RPGs like, say, on consoles--I don't).  If there were more of a selection of TB, I would feel better about RT games and just pick and choose whichever at will and certainly have no grudge against either.  But I find I don't have that choice which makes me feel a bit resentful against RT games for dominating the market.  I certainly think there are markets enough for both.  But marketing geniuses seem to decide everything should be RT as that's the "new thing/what kids only want" (their thought--that kids can only want big explosions and hyper action--which I feel is insulting to younger gamers).  It feels as though, we, as an audience, are being told that we are too stupid to enjoy both.  That only kids play games, and they only want twitch games.  That there is only one type of game player: an 11-15 year old boy who wants to see stuff blow up.  Indirectly, it feels insulting to me as a game player.  I think there are all kinds.  And that they dont' always prefer one type of game and that it depends on their mood.  Age of Empires, for example, is probably one of my top ten games.  But then, so is Xcom.  But wouldn't you want  the choice for either?  I don't feel like I have that choice.  I end up playing xcom/ja/fallout (and now finally, Silent Storm) for the umpteenth time but I can have any number of RTS games to choose from.  If there were a glut of TB games out there, I might not feel so strongly about it, but for years now, I haven't seen it.  It seems as though only recently has Silent Storm made a sort of semi-resurgence of TB games.  I hope it continues.  Then maybe you'll see a poll like, "Which of these top ten TB Strategy games do you like the most?"

#22 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    former bf2 pro... left because of hitreg...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 05 July 2005 - 05:16 PM

well, in RT, you are fighting enemies that can fight back, which makes it much tougher.  In apoc, i have always liked RT, even though it is extremely tough, when i play turn based the aliens are terrible fighters and i always win.  
So RT is tougher and enemies shoot back :P
I was this *---* close to being a bf2 pro player, but i left because of my internet and hitreg...  meh.  Just plain meh

#23 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 July 2005 - 05:37 PM

The only way RT can be tougher is because it involves reaction time.  That's it.  Enemies shoot back all the time in TB games.  I'm unaware of any TB games where the enemy cannot fight back.
Except Death Camp 4: Exterminate the Pacifists, of course.  That was a good 'un.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#24 Spiro

Spiro

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 07 July 2005 - 01:04 PM

I vote "other" couse i like both, depends how much time i have.
TB is good couse you must think about few turns in advance and offers good tactics possibilities. It's terribly slow, though (remeber ship rescue missions in TFTD).
RT, on other size, is good for fast missions. Problem is, you can win if you just place few soldiers and blow things up.
So, combinations of those are good, like pauseble RT. But, there may be better way. Just nobody knows for now.

#25 Azrael Strife

Azrael Strife

    Captain

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montevideo, Uruguay.

Posted 19 July 2005 - 06:00 AM

Slaughter, on Jul 1 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

Yeah, both modes sure are fun. I tend to lean towards TB as preference however.

Regarding X-COM online, UFO2000 is a good step in the right direction! Did you try it? LSN isn't bad either!

Like your avatar :P. Could you possibly make your signature a little smaller however? Oh, and welcome to the boards!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blasphemy! Real Time is the *only* way to go!  :mad:
Posted Image

#26 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    former bf2 pro... left because of hitreg...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 291 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 19 July 2005 - 04:57 PM

RT= far harder, more fun
TB = far easier, less fun

I think i have posted a similar message to that about 3 times, but i wish to show my opinion over and over again, to prove my point
I was this *---* close to being a bf2 pro player, but i left because of my internet and hitreg...  meh.  Just plain meh

#27 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 July 2005 - 05:12 PM

Quote

I think i have posted a similar message to that about 3 times, but i wish to show my opinion over and over again, to prove my point

Typical real time mentality.  Give it loads, hope something works.  *sigh*
No panache.  No elan.  No joie de vivre.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#28 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 19 July 2005 - 08:27 PM

blehm, on Jul 19 2005, 06:57 PM, said:

RT= far harder, more fun
TB = far easier, less fun

I think i have posted a similar message to that about 3 times, but i wish to show my opinion over and over again, to prove my point

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, when harder means less thinking and faster clicking... :P


#29 Azrael Strife

Azrael Strife

    Captain

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montevideo, Uruguay.

Posted 19 July 2005 - 08:33 PM

Slaughter, on Jul 19 2005, 08:27 PM, said:

Well, when harder means less thinking and faster clicking... :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree with blehm, I find it hardest tb, mainly because I lose my patience  :P
But I don't like it real time like in C&C (though I love that game), I prefer real time like in X-Com Apocalypse, in which you can use pause in any moment, gives you plenty of time to react and to calculate what to do next, if real time means who clicks first, then I don't like it much (and the computer always has the advantage there, of course  :D ). But RT like in Apocalypse, RPGs like Baldur's Gate, Homeworld 2 and such is the way to go.  ;)
Posted Image

#30 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 19 July 2005 - 08:57 PM

Yeah, you're right, the systems with pause are better. Aftermath uses a variation of it, and that is nice. Still prefer TB myself, but I hear you on the patience issue. Using 5 hours on a Silent Storm mission can get a little too much...


#31 NKF

NKF

    Mr. Badger in disguise

  • Site Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,449 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In my mind

Posted 20 July 2005 - 05:40 AM

I rather like both modes of gameplay. Each mode is ... well, unique.

Apocalypse's turn-based mode however could've done with a quick brush-up.

1. To ignore the civilians turn.
2. If not 1, then to at least get an animation speed control like in the prequels to speed up the ruddy wait.
3. To not get into an infinite loop during the alien movement phase. Happens a lot on slower machines. Hasn't happened on a faster machine.

It would've been even better if the game allowed you to change modes in the middle of the battle - although I can see that without some restrictions: freely changing modes would be open to some abuse, such as quickly switching to turn-based so that you can freely empty 40 - 50 bullets from a M4000 into an alien and then switching back to real-time.  

- NKF
NKF - finally built a gaming PC in 2020 (though not any of that RGB nonsense). Can now play games up to '89!

#32 zeus185

zeus185

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 20 July 2005 - 02:57 PM

i dont want one or the other i WANT BOTH BOTH BOTH AARARAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA oh wheres my medication :)

#33 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 20 July 2005 - 07:05 PM

NKF, on Jul 20 2005, 07:40 AM, said:

I rather like both modes of gameplay. Each mode is ... well, unique.

Apocalypse's turn-based mode however could've done with a quick brush-up.

1. To ignore the civilians turn.
2. If not 1, then to at least get an animation speed control like in the prequels to speed up the ruddy wait.
3. To not get into an infinite loop during the alien movement phase. Happens a lot on slower machines. Hasn't happened on a faster machine.

It would've been even better if the game allowed you to change modes in the middle of the battle - although I can see that without some restrictions: freely changing modes would be open to some abuse, such as quickly switching to turn-based so that you can freely empty 40 - 50 bullets from a M4000 into an alien and then switching back to real-time.  

- NKF

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, both are best, but there are several disadvantages. First of all, my impression is that it's near impossible to properly balance. Second, it takes a LOT more time in development to include both. I'm no game designer, but that's what I have heard and can imagine at least.


#34 sir-roosio

sir-roosio

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Wherever My Galleon Makes Port.

Posted 22 July 2005 - 01:01 PM

I have a problem, and it is this. . . .

I will sit down to play a turn based strategy game, and I'll sit for a long time formulating strategies. I'll brainstorm different approaches, think of the consequences, budget in elements of unpredictability, and gradually work my way to a grand master plan that couldn't possibly fail!

I will go into battle, go to stage one of the plan, suffer a few setbacks, but carry on, I've budgeted for a few wee peoblems, gradually work my way through and then. . .GET SLAUGHTERED!!!!!

So does this happen because. . .

1) I actually have no understanding of the situation and so formulate strategies that just don't work

or

2) I'm such an amazing goddamn genius that the strategies I make are just too damn clever for a masly little computer game, so it gets all confused and decides to just cheat and slaughter me.

it's very probably 1, I shall keep telling myself it's 2!
Said Hamlet to Ophelia,
I'll draw a sketch of thee,
What kind of pencil shall I use?
2B or not 2B?

Spike Milligan

#35 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 July 2005 - 01:06 PM

A plan is always the first casualty in a battle.  Your enemy will always do something you don't expect.  You have to adapt and improvise accordingly.
It's nice when stage 1 goes ok, then the enemy buggers up stage 2, but you manage to cope and then wipe them out with stage 3 of a cunning plan.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#36 Longshots

Longshots

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 July 2005 - 06:40 PM

I love turn based games. I do get along with real time though but not as well. Real Time tends to deal with your abilty to bluid faster then anyone else, and less on strategy. Turn Based tends to allow the player to mirco manage his forces so he can do what ever wants, but loses intensity.

One thing i hate about real time when you have a huge army it becomes nearly impossible to control the units the way you want. Especially if you have units with special powers but you can't use them due to the fact that things are going too fast. But that would be no problem if the computer was restriced to the speed at which it could actively used it's ablities. I have rarely met a person with the speed to use characters or units special powers faster then a computer. Also the computer can control all peasant/worker/robots at once so making better use of resouces in a shorter period of time.

I Remember playing Warcaft 2 as orcs. There was this evil mission where there was about 30 humans knights who could heal themselve so fast you couldn't kill them useless you attacked with total overwhelming force. Not much strategy there.  However some games have built in equalizers, like given the abitily to the units to use theirs abilities on their own.

Some games do a good job of mix the two together. Like the Total War series, Where you build in a turn based side. And fight in real time battles, where you can pause for a bit to reorder troops so you can make coordinated attacks.

In the end what kind of games i love are ones where Strategy reigns over resource gathering (But still an element) coupled with a good story and complex and or mult. sided gameplay.

#37 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 26 July 2005 - 06:48 PM

Agreed! I rarely use magicians and the likes in RTS games because there is no way I can control them properly in battle (as you describe).

Oh, and welcome to the boards!


#38 FullAuto

FullAuto

    Catching the next pimpmobile outta here!

  • Chief Editor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,853 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 July 2005 - 10:25 PM

Real Time's took a bit of a kicking, and rightly so.
Look at that. 31-7.  I think we all know, through the power of true democracy, who is superior.

Erfworld - the finest comic about turn-based gaming ever.


#39 Cap'n Kyth

Cap'n Kyth

    OMGWTFBBQMECH

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Location:England, Europe

Posted 26 July 2005 - 11:59 PM

FullAuto, on Jul 22 2005, 01:06 PM, said:

A plan is always the first casualty in a battle.  Your enemy will always do something you don't expect.  You have to adapt and improvise accordingly.
It's nice when stage 1 goes ok, then the enemy buggers up stage 2, but you manage to cope and then wipe them out with stage 3 of a cunning plan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The only plan that I have yet to see fail or crash and burn on Apoc Realtime is "sit outside, then storm the interior".

It works on most mission terrains!  :mad:

#40 sir-roosio

sir-roosio

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Wherever My Galleon Makes Port.

Posted 01 August 2005 - 12:18 PM

What i hate about RTS is not just the fact that the computer can control faster, but the fact that the computer can control everything at once!

So while you ordering your cavalry to advance his cavalry are commencing the first charge while his infantry are bringing up the rear and his artillery is bombarding you ALL AT ONCE!

they should make the computer unable to multi task! that would even things up a bit!
Said Hamlet to Ophelia,
I'll draw a sketch of thee,
What kind of pencil shall I use?
2B or not 2B?

Spike Milligan




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users