Anthraxus said:
"Most of us finds them boring anyway"
That says more about you attention span maybe?
Given that you were the one complaining that you can't keep up with a real-time system, I'd be careful before i throw accusations like that around
)
Anthraxus said:
Turn-based is superior for mainly two reasons:
1) Better control over what is happening
2) Better feedback on what is happening
Better control does NOT make a better game.
If i wanted a game where i can have great control, I'd play tic-tac-toe. Unfortunately, tic-tac-toe isn't a game with much depth, and I'd quickly grow bored.
You see, by that argument, all first person shooters should be played in slow motion, because that would give each player more control over whats happening. That doesn't make it a good decision. You see,
chaos creates excitement. Excitement equals a higher adrenaline rush, and an adrenaline rush is the equivalent of a stimulating feeling (especially if it also comes with the satisfaction of victory).
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that a turn-based game is bad. I used tic-tac-toe as an example to show that it doesn't automatically make a game good, but there are still good turnbased games.
To take your later statement...
I guess most of you find chess boring too, huh ?
...I'll answer with, No, in fact i love chess, but for a very specific reason.
You see, the problem with most turn-based computer games, however, is that it's often ridiculously easy to predict which course of action is the best. In chess, you don't objectively know if a move is good or bad until you try it (although you can have an idea about it). In games like Final Fantasy and Pokemon, that excitement is lost when you just use your most powerful attacks, or just use counter-attacks (water attacks vs. fire pokemon) to win everything. The day someone "solves chess" (which is to say, never, but it's still theoretically possible) the game is going to lose all excitement. Fortunately, like i said, it's never going to happen.
Case in point is that while turn-based games can surely be great, better control does not mean better game. Realtime-games can challenge you in ways that turnbased games can't. They can challenge your reaction times, they can challenge your aiming precision/control (and that's not just shooters I'm talking here. Games like StarCraft II also requires precise micro), they can challenge your ability to multitask, your ability to keep an overview in a stressful situation.
I can respect that you might not personally like games like that and would prefer things with better control. It's personal preference, and i can respect that. But like i retorted above, that says more about YOUR attention span than mine, because nothing requires a bigger attention span than handling one situation after another under time pressure, and if there is one thing turn-based games lack it's time pressure
)
Oh and....
Real-time invokes player skill while turn based utilizes mostly character skills. Sure, there will always be the element of player skill, but an RPG is about utilizing character skill. Thus, turn based is generally seen as the better alternative.
You might be thinking pen and paper RPG's, but RPG's have involved since then, and now it's BOTH about player and character skill.
By that argument, Mass Effect should also have been turn-based. Short answer: No.
RPG means roleplaying game, you know that just as well as me. But nowhere does that suggest that player skill shouldn't contribute in any way. In fact, the word "game" itself suggests that it's something you do to challenge yourself for entertainment.
There is a reason that Baldur's Gate often rank higher than other RPG's on the list of "best games ever", so your argument that turn-based are seen as the better alternative is grounded right there
)