I think turn-based combat was a mistake for many reasons but the main one is because it is contradictory to the nature of video games and D&D. D&D is first and foremost about creating a simulation of a faux reality we cannot access in any other way than our imagination and theater of the mind. Video games are proto-simulations by their very nature. Turn based combat is like a glitch in the matrix, it's a crack in the simulation. This was acceptable and understandable in the past due to technical limitations and the industry not pulling the kind of audience or money that it is today but that is no longer the case. I'm not saying RTwP is perfect but it is definitely a step up from turn based combat in this regard. I could say more on this subject but I don't want to offend anyone or taint my sentiment with bias so I'll leave it at that.
So you're saying the Fire Emblem series, Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, and the entire Disgaea series are against the nature of video games? Or past their time?
I would appreciate it if moving forward you would read what I have written and take it into account first. I outlined my thoughts clearly but I will do so again. Final Fantasy tactics, Tactics ogre and Disgaea did not suffer greatly due to them having a heavy focus on tactical combat(a wargame in pen and paper terms). Fire Emblem was releasing in 1990 while the technical limitations I spoke of where still present and prevalent and thus I would not hold it against them though I would support my previous statement that the turn based combat is counterproductive to the immersion or the efficacy of the simulation.
Originally Posted by Eguzky
I feel RTwP is past it's time, myself. It was a hybrid system to try taking a turn-based ruleset and making it realtime. It did what it set out to do, but only barely. And combat in RTwP is boring for me because I just end up either 1) Pausing every 6 seconds to re-issue orders. Making it turn-based anyways. 2) Swarm the enemy with melee classes in order to avoid pausing too much. Which is then minimal effort/input from me and boring.
In reply to your first point I can't help but point out that you are creating the problem yourself. I would use the pause function sparingly and only to circumvent the lack of a quick slot bar or being able to bind spells to keys directly. I would not use it to change targets, retreat, advance or use consumables not on my hotbar. You continue to say that it is turn based anyway and in that regard I can't understand how you would consider it inferior when it is capable of twice the choice of turn based combat. I do not want to make any assumptions so I will rather wait for you to explain this point further at your discretion. On the second point I can't help but highlight that this, again, is a problem you are creating. I always made my parties as varied as possible with a minimal frontline where my melee fighter where picked for their classes and the benefits that come with them(i.e Paladin and Barbarian) rather than them being melee characters. I also used my spellcasters to nullify or outpace enemy spellcasters or shut them down entirely by removing their initial protections and inflicting them with conditions that where extremely detrimental to casters(poison, insect swarm etc). This is a problem you created by choosing this strategy rather than investigating the game mechanics and learning about the combat. Yet again I cannot understand how you consider a system that requires you to pay attention and learn its intricacies as being inferior to one that does not but I will await further explanation.
Last edited by Argonaut; 18/10/2008:42 PM.
I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.