No, you're missing the point. It's not a straw man. I'm pointing out that your defense of the pauses in RTwP applies almost exactly to turn-based combat, but apparently that concept is beyond your ability to grasp.
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
CAN a player do what I describe in a RTwP game? Sure, absolutely. A player CAN do those things. But WHY? Doing that in a RTwP game totally defeats the entire point and purpose of playing a game like that. That's why I have never ever done those things when playing a RTwP game - because doing those things defeats the whole point of playing that kind of game. On the other hand, doing those things when playing a TB game makes perfect sense because it's a great convenience and the point/purpose of the game is very different. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean it makes much sense to do it except when necessary because sometimes you just have to take a break to go do something.
So yes, your comment absolutely IS a straw man, and it's a lie of omission because you conveniently ignore the important context of the two very different situations and the two very different purposes of different kinds of games. And since Intro to Logic is one of the seven Philosophy courses I tutor it is literally my job to recognize when someone is using a logical fallacy. Again, you are using two. The purpose of RT combat is to produce a sense of immediacy, urgency, danger, and excitement when simulating combat in whatever genre the combat is occurring. When done effectively that immediacy, urgency, danger, and excitement also pay off with emersion. A FPS, or a flight sim or space sim or tank sim or ship sim, doesn't need a pause because my character/unit is the only one I'm controlling so my character/unit lives or dies on how well I do in the fight by effectively executing my skills and possibly even tactics depending upon the game. Pause isn't necessary in many small unit games, like for example a tank sim where I'm commanding and controlling one tank while leading a platoon of four or five tanks because in a sim or tactical wargame one of the points is to simulate the command and control and fog of war of tactical combat. I can control my tank and issue movement orders and targeting orders to the other tanks, but how well they do depends upon their skills (really the whims of the RNG gods) and how well I do in my tank is up to me and my skills. Now, if we were to expand the number of units from one or a handful to 20 or 30 or more then it could make perfect sense to have a pause function because then effective control of a larger number of units my require a pause function, OR changing to a phased WeGo with reaction TB system. Scale matters.
But in the RT combat of an RPG with a party of six the only way to simulate the amount of control a party leader can have over what amounts to a fireteam, or to simulate six individuals simultaneously making decisions on the fly during combat, is by BRIEFLY pausing long enough for the player to issue new orders and then unpause to get back to the action as soon as possible. The POINT/PURPOSE of RT and RTwP is to make as sense/feeling of emersion, urgency, immediacy, excitement and tension possible, and the more the better. Unless someone prefers the much more leisurely pace of a TB game. Sometimes I prefer the former. Sometimes I prefer the latter. I always prefer the former when playing an RPG. That's one of the reasons why I don't play certain RPGs, because they are turn based. Another reason I don't play certain RPGs is because I cannot run a party. All of the RPGs I play where I can't control a full party but can still enjoy it are also an FPS, like for example the Fallout games. If we could run a whole party in Fallout New Vega or Fallout 4 like we can in certain D&D games, FNV and F4 would be near perfect PRGs and equal to if not better than the Baldur's Gate games.
[quote=Stabbey][quote=Vlad the Impaler] And now that you have resorted to a childish ad hominem attack you obviously have no credibility whatsoever and don't deserve another nanosecond of time.
I don't see any "childish ad hominem" there. You're the one saying that you are unable to pay attention to turn-based games when it's not your turn. Are we supposed to treat you credibly when you say stuff like that?
Well then you are willfully blind. Your comment about my supposedly short attention span is a childish ad hominem attack, and a lame false dilemma. There isn't a damn thing wrong with my attention span when I'm playing a game that requires any attention. CONTEXT matters.
Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 23/08/2005:56 AM.