Why so much hate for Turn Based Games?
- Thread starter PedroSteckecilo
- Start date
Hi, I'm a first time poster. And, for the record, I'm a male teenager with ADD.
I find this discussion slightly odd, because the majority of the TBSes forwarded are FF style JRPGs and Civilization. I don't think this represents the scope of the field. What ever happened to games like X-com, Nethack, Master of Magic, or Galactic Civilizations? The field can't be accurately summed up and analysed by "line-and-fire" style RPGs or one specific strategy game.
I'm more of a TBS gamer over RTS. The only real RTS strategy game I liked was TA Spring (the original TA had waaaay too many bugs to be a classic game). On the other hand, I find video-game RPGs in general boring, Chrono Trigger and Nethack excepting. Allow me to ignore that group; I don't have much experience with them.
The big thing I like about TBS strategy games is the potential complexity they have. RTSes simply cannot have the same sprawling maps or massive armies a game like Master of Magic can have (Spring excepting), nor can they have reach the sheer amount of options Dominions 3 or Space Empires has.
Take Starcraft, for example. I know this might not be the best game to use, but it's one of the RTS I've played the most and still, AFAIK, the most popular one. For small-to-midsize battles, there's a lot of options available. It still does not reach the possibilities most TBS offer. When it comes to larger wars, however, the game is mostly restricted to "make a lot of units." On the other hand, look at what Space Empires 5 offers. In addition to creating superfleets, there's a host of other useful tactics, mostly various things stellar manipulation offers. For example, you can turn systems into black holes or warp smaller killfleets directly into enemy lines, or use a combined virus/espionage/boarders attack to take over large sections of the enemy fleet. Or look at Masters of Magic or Dominions 3. In addition to using armies, you can throw around world-shattering magic to do anything from open portals to hell to call armies of dragons or (in one fun MoM spell) make every single unit that dies rise as a zombie under your control.
I'm not saying that's for everyone. It's scientifically shown that people feel less confident with more options available, and gaining a good understanding of what you can do takes a lot of time and planning. RTSes can offer plenty of tactical complexity without requiring so much time to grasp. They also take less time to play, requiring a few hours as opposed to a few weeks or months. It's more a matter of personal preference than an objective difference.
The other thing I like about TBSes is the time scale. Specifically, things aren't happening really fast. I tend to panic when I have to be in five places at once with a limitted timespan to deal with each. Not only do I do poorly in those situations, but I also have less time to think about my next move or two. With TBSes, though, time is stopped as long as I want it. I have more time to address each issue, and I have time to plan ahead. In my only (there's not enough players
) multiplayer SE 5 game, I spent maybe 20 minutes on each turn. Half of it was analyzing the situation and trying to predict and counter what my opponent was planning, a quarter of it was building and testing new ship designs and fleet tactics, and the rest was actually moving my pieces. Not everybody enjoys that. I do.
Of course, this is also a weakness for the genre. As mentioned before, online TBS games can take weeks or months. They're also completely unplayable if combat isn't somehow automated. This isn't instant gratification or even delayed gratification- it's belated gratification. It makes it really hard to enjoy games of this type, reducing the number of people who play it. This makes it harder to find online games, making playing online more frustrating and perpetuating a vicious cycle. RTSes aren't nearly as bad in this regard, and generally have more players. Also, since they are take a lot less time to play, you can play multiple RTS games in the time it takes to play one TBS game. This provides a lot more enjoyment and tactical variance if you aren't willing to put up with TBS uber-complexity.
While TBSes are a dying breed, I really wouldn't say they have to remain that way. It's not that hard to produce a TBS, at least not as hard as an RTS. Well over a hundred people worked on Warcraft 3, over twenty of them programmers. Dominions 3 was completely developed by two people, one of them working part-time. Aaron Hall singlehandedly programmed all of the Space Empires games. If people were more willing to buy them, it would be very easy to oblige.
However, I'd say that many more people lie in the RTS camp than the TBS one. TBSes require a lot of patience and dedication not just to master, but to enjoy. Sure, it gets much easier after learning the first, but the problem still persists. More people are interested in the faster-paced, tactically-acceptable RTS field than the slow-paced, strategically-grandoise TBS field.
I think that sums up most of my major points, those relating to strategy games at least.
I find this discussion slightly odd, because the majority of the TBSes forwarded are FF style JRPGs and Civilization. I don't think this represents the scope of the field. What ever happened to games like X-com, Nethack, Master of Magic, or Galactic Civilizations? The field can't be accurately summed up and analysed by "line-and-fire" style RPGs or one specific strategy game.
I'm more of a TBS gamer over RTS. The only real RTS strategy game I liked was TA Spring (the original TA had waaaay too many bugs to be a classic game). On the other hand, I find video-game RPGs in general boring, Chrono Trigger and Nethack excepting. Allow me to ignore that group; I don't have much experience with them.
The big thing I like about TBS strategy games is the potential complexity they have. RTSes simply cannot have the same sprawling maps or massive armies a game like Master of Magic can have (Spring excepting), nor can they have reach the sheer amount of options Dominions 3 or Space Empires has.
Take Starcraft, for example. I know this might not be the best game to use, but it's one of the RTS I've played the most and still, AFAIK, the most popular one. For small-to-midsize battles, there's a lot of options available. It still does not reach the possibilities most TBS offer. When it comes to larger wars, however, the game is mostly restricted to "make a lot of units." On the other hand, look at what Space Empires 5 offers. In addition to creating superfleets, there's a host of other useful tactics, mostly various things stellar manipulation offers. For example, you can turn systems into black holes or warp smaller killfleets directly into enemy lines, or use a combined virus/espionage/boarders attack to take over large sections of the enemy fleet. Or look at Masters of Magic or Dominions 3. In addition to using armies, you can throw around world-shattering magic to do anything from open portals to hell to call armies of dragons or (in one fun MoM spell) make every single unit that dies rise as a zombie under your control.
I'm not saying that's for everyone. It's scientifically shown that people feel less confident with more options available, and gaining a good understanding of what you can do takes a lot of time and planning. RTSes can offer plenty of tactical complexity without requiring so much time to grasp. They also take less time to play, requiring a few hours as opposed to a few weeks or months. It's more a matter of personal preference than an objective difference.
The other thing I like about TBSes is the time scale. Specifically, things aren't happening really fast. I tend to panic when I have to be in five places at once with a limitted timespan to deal with each. Not only do I do poorly in those situations, but I also have less time to think about my next move or two. With TBSes, though, time is stopped as long as I want it. I have more time to address each issue, and I have time to plan ahead. In my only (there's not enough players
) multiplayer SE 5 game, I spent maybe 20 minutes on each turn. Half of it was analyzing the situation and trying to predict and counter what my opponent was planning, a quarter of it was building and testing new ship designs and fleet tactics, and the rest was actually moving my pieces. Not everybody enjoys that. I do.Of course, this is also a weakness for the genre. As mentioned before, online TBS games can take weeks or months. They're also completely unplayable if combat isn't somehow automated. This isn't instant gratification or even delayed gratification- it's belated gratification. It makes it really hard to enjoy games of this type, reducing the number of people who play it. This makes it harder to find online games, making playing online more frustrating and perpetuating a vicious cycle. RTSes aren't nearly as bad in this regard, and generally have more players. Also, since they are take a lot less time to play, you can play multiple RTS games in the time it takes to play one TBS game. This provides a lot more enjoyment and tactical variance if you aren't willing to put up with TBS uber-complexity.
While TBSes are a dying breed, I really wouldn't say they have to remain that way. It's not that hard to produce a TBS, at least not as hard as an RTS. Well over a hundred people worked on Warcraft 3, over twenty of them programmers. Dominions 3 was completely developed by two people, one of them working part-time. Aaron Hall singlehandedly programmed all of the Space Empires games. If people were more willing to buy them, it would be very easy to oblige.
However, I'd say that many more people lie in the RTS camp than the TBS one. TBSes require a lot of patience and dedication not just to master, but to enjoy. Sure, it gets much easier after learning the first, but the problem still persists. More people are interested in the faster-paced, tactically-acceptable RTS field than the slow-paced, strategically-grandoise TBS field.
I think that sums up most of my major points, those relating to strategy games at least.
One of the best games I've ever had the privilege of playing is Warhammer: Chaos Gate. This is a tun based game where in you control a squad of space marines whom you select and outfit before each battle then enter a grid map where you have x number of movement points per turn.
There was so much going on at all times, such as ducking for cover so you can heal a unit, using specialized equipment against certain foes,positioning to ambush oncoming enemy forces, or using your librarians psychic abilities to maximum effect, that if the game had been real time my brain would probably have exploded.
That being said, I find that turn based RPG's tend to not do so well. I hear people talking about Final Fantasy but I never much cared for the series and found the combat to be repetitiously dull. Now by the same token I don't think hack and slash is the way to go either.
I like the way Neverwinter Nights allowed you to pause the game and plan out moves in advance for you party members, but still play your "main" in real time. Sometimes I found myself pausing to micromanage everything, when other times I could play the whole fight without it.
There was so much going on at all times, such as ducking for cover so you can heal a unit, using specialized equipment against certain foes,positioning to ambush oncoming enemy forces, or using your librarians psychic abilities to maximum effect, that if the game had been real time my brain would probably have exploded.
That being said, I find that turn based RPG's tend to not do so well. I hear people talking about Final Fantasy but I never much cared for the series and found the combat to be repetitiously dull. Now by the same token I don't think hack and slash is the way to go either.
I like the way Neverwinter Nights allowed you to pause the game and plan out moves in advance for you party members, but still play your "main" in real time. Sometimes I found myself pausing to micromanage everything, when other times I could play the whole fight without it.
Aye, I generally agree with you. I don't think I could bare to play SE 5 with anyone other than a computer player without being prepared to waste a weekend. Since this thread seems to be mainly about people ignoring what others have said and saying "I Don't Like Turn Based RPGS They Are Not Making Fight Except Civ", I'm going to assume that we've all successfuly argued the case for TB games and made every decent point that is going to made and anything else from this point being "me too!"-ing.Nine of Hearts said:
I think the fact that I can enjoy both TBG's ('cept RPG's) and RTS's seems to confuse some people... Yes, it IS possible to enjoy two differing styles of play for different reasons. My mind isn't polarised into some kind of schizophrenic mood spinning mastermind, sadly. Sometimes I'm just in the mood for one or the other. Maybe others'll see that.
What's strange about that? I see RTS and TBS games as very similar, the only difference is that for the first one quick reflexes are more important (ok, that's not the ONLY difference obviously, but I do find the two genres very similar)ScreamingCrab said:
Because it *shouldn't* confuse them. It should just be "oh, different playing style I guess", not crap debates about which one requires more skill and is more realistic in a dumbass attenpt to justify their own preferences. That irritates me, it's like saying basketball requires less skill than football because you're using your hands, when you're only arguing it because you like football.Graustein said:
I was asking why your preferences could be considered strangeScreamingCrab said:
I agree completely. My favourite games range from the Pen&Paper D&D and Diplomacy, to Age of Mythology and Civilisation, to Metroid, Mario and LoZ, to Smash Bros, to some FPS games even.
The only game genre I don't like at all are the sports ones. Even racing games, I've found much enjoyment in F-Zero GX. Hell, I've been known to play JRPGs.
The point of a game is to have fun. If you have fun staring at sprites moving around and bashing other sprites one-by-one (Civ), go for it. If you like to shoot things, shoot away. I find genre wars and console wars completely pointless. If you don't like something, then just don't play it, don't go out of your way to bash other people for liking it. When you get down to it, all games are retarded on SOME level.
Ahhh, my bad. Uh... Yeah! You illustrate my point perfeclty! I enjoy a good game of Age of Mythology and Civ, while after having a game of Halo with a mate. I cast pity upon those who cannot variate their choice of games (and indeed most things) because of their own preconceptions. I cast it with force.Graustein said:I was asking why your preferences could be considered strange
I agree completely. My favourite games range from the Pen&Paper D&D and Diplomacy, to Age of Mythology and Civilisation, to Metroid, Mario and LoZ, to Smash Bros, to some FPS games even.
The only game genre I don't like at all are the sports ones. Even racing games, I've found much enjoyment in F-Zero GX. Hell, I've been known to play JRPGs
Okay, I feel like I'm dipping my toe in piranha-infested waters here, but I'm a recent convert to classic stand-in-a-line-dancing-at-one-another JRPGs. I play action games as well, but over the last six weeks I've sunk almost 300 hours into this kind of game and only ten or twenty into other stuff.
Why? Well, two (main) reasons.
The first is that it's been finals season and a lot of the time I haven't wanted a gripping, adrenaline-filled gaming experience to bookend my days of revision and stress. I've wanted something that I can come home to, flop on the couch in front of, and press the occasional buttton while watching pretty, flashy effects go off. Skies of Arcadia, while all-round a terrible game which I would never recommend (more on that shortly) was great for this, and hence got 80 hours of my time.
The second reason is harder to explain directly. Someone mentioned above that turn-based games have become obsolete because it's now possible to do a lot more in real-time on computers, which is fair enough, but the human brain (or at least, this human brain) hasn't evolved similarly. One thing which the old-style FF games make possible which isn't possible in more real-time-ish games (including FF12, which I finished less than 6 hours ago - though FF12's solution to this problem was one of the more potentially interesting aspects of gameplay) is precise control of several characters.
For example, in Half Life, you can only be Gordon Freeman - okay, periodically you get the chance to order a squad around, but it's hardly control, you're not *playing the role* of those other characters and tbh I found those sections dull and frustrating (I'm aware there are better real-time squad-based combat games out there, I've just not played them. Bear with me here?). In FF10 I can, in effect, *be* Tidus (who'd want to?), Yuna, Auron and the rest, but without having to have three brains.
Obviously, that's not to everyone's taste. Some people prefer to get caught up in one character, and I can see the benefits of that too, but the ability to participate in several characters of a story can lend an interesting dimension to it. For better or for worse, FF games tend to have more of an 'ensemble cast' feel, whereas games like Half-Life have clearer-cut lead characters and supporting roles. Also, in FF I can be a football star, samurai and powerful mage at the same time, just by moving to the next turn, which I like.
That's not to say turn-based games are perfect (I said I'd come back to Skies of Arcadia, didn't I? ^_-). Skies does just about everything wrong; it has an obscene rate of random encounters, most of which can be defeated in the first turn after about half-way through the game when you start being able to do even the lower-powered special moves on the first turn (interestingly, I have two friends who rank it among their favourite games, and another who's currently searching for a copy because she loves random encounters; make of this what you will). It also has a cliched, moronic, facile, happy-clappy plot and protagonist, and the few fights that aren't stupidly easy are broken and near-impossible, and I recognise that none of these things are atypical of the genre; about the only thing it really has going for it is the prettyness of the design work and special effects, and even those are graphically dated.
Very little of the problem with the game is actually the fact that it's turn-based, however. The problems, if you look closely, are lazy design work, overpowered player characters (yeah, okay, I did a bit of level-grinding here and there, but not very much, and most of it *after* the point that the game broke) and a lack of originality. Every time the game got difficult, a new and often quite far-out strategy was required and, for those of you clamouring about immersion, the battles weren't animated to have your characters standing in lines opposite the monsters; instead, all the combatants appear on an appropriate-looking combat area (the deck of your ship, or a corridor of whatever dungeon you're in) and will move around it as the combat progresses. Combat still works in turns, but if you could turn all the menu and health bar graphics off, it would look like some sort of genuine fight was progressing (albeit, due to bad AI scripting governing the movement and animations of the characters, a disorganised and confusing one). It was an interesting touch to the game, but not enough to save it.
I could say a lot more about immersion in turn-based games (the nail-biting finale to the last optional super-boss in FF12 that I was sitting through at 5AM today being first on the list), but I've yammered enough for now...
Why? Well, two (main) reasons.
The first is that it's been finals season and a lot of the time I haven't wanted a gripping, adrenaline-filled gaming experience to bookend my days of revision and stress. I've wanted something that I can come home to, flop on the couch in front of, and press the occasional buttton while watching pretty, flashy effects go off. Skies of Arcadia, while all-round a terrible game which I would never recommend (more on that shortly) was great for this, and hence got 80 hours of my time.
The second reason is harder to explain directly. Someone mentioned above that turn-based games have become obsolete because it's now possible to do a lot more in real-time on computers, which is fair enough, but the human brain (or at least, this human brain) hasn't evolved similarly. One thing which the old-style FF games make possible which isn't possible in more real-time-ish games (including FF12, which I finished less than 6 hours ago - though FF12's solution to this problem was one of the more potentially interesting aspects of gameplay) is precise control of several characters.
For example, in Half Life, you can only be Gordon Freeman - okay, periodically you get the chance to order a squad around, but it's hardly control, you're not *playing the role* of those other characters and tbh I found those sections dull and frustrating (I'm aware there are better real-time squad-based combat games out there, I've just not played them. Bear with me here?). In FF10 I can, in effect, *be* Tidus (who'd want to?), Yuna, Auron and the rest, but without having to have three brains.
Obviously, that's not to everyone's taste. Some people prefer to get caught up in one character, and I can see the benefits of that too, but the ability to participate in several characters of a story can lend an interesting dimension to it. For better or for worse, FF games tend to have more of an 'ensemble cast' feel, whereas games like Half-Life have clearer-cut lead characters and supporting roles. Also, in FF I can be a football star, samurai and powerful mage at the same time, just by moving to the next turn, which I like.
That's not to say turn-based games are perfect (I said I'd come back to Skies of Arcadia, didn't I? ^_-). Skies does just about everything wrong; it has an obscene rate of random encounters, most of which can be defeated in the first turn after about half-way through the game when you start being able to do even the lower-powered special moves on the first turn (interestingly, I have two friends who rank it among their favourite games, and another who's currently searching for a copy because she loves random encounters; make of this what you will). It also has a cliched, moronic, facile, happy-clappy plot and protagonist, and the few fights that aren't stupidly easy are broken and near-impossible, and I recognise that none of these things are atypical of the genre; about the only thing it really has going for it is the prettyness of the design work and special effects, and even those are graphically dated.
Very little of the problem with the game is actually the fact that it's turn-based, however. The problems, if you look closely, are lazy design work, overpowered player characters (yeah, okay, I did a bit of level-grinding here and there, but not very much, and most of it *after* the point that the game broke) and a lack of originality. Every time the game got difficult, a new and often quite far-out strategy was required and, for those of you clamouring about immersion, the battles weren't animated to have your characters standing in lines opposite the monsters; instead, all the combatants appear on an appropriate-looking combat area (the deck of your ship, or a corridor of whatever dungeon you're in) and will move around it as the combat progresses. Combat still works in turns, but if you could turn all the menu and health bar graphics off, it would look like some sort of genuine fight was progressing (albeit, due to bad AI scripting governing the movement and animations of the characters, a disorganised and confusing one). It was an interesting touch to the game, but not enough to save it.
I could say a lot more about immersion in turn-based games (the nail-biting finale to the last optional super-boss in FF12 that I was sitting through at 5AM today being first on the list), but I've yammered enough for now...
Chaos Gate was awesome, although the bugs could get annoying. The soundtrack was amazing, though. If you're interested in the genre, other good games are the X-COM series (abandonware now) and Jagged Alliance (which I really need to play and is abandonware).Orion Magus said:
Maybe we could make a compendium of strategy TBS gamers here? I'd love to play most of these games multiplayer, it's just that there's a real dearth of people that do.
I don't like turn based video games Paper Mario is funny enough to make up for it.Nine of Hearts said:I see a distinct lack of "The Settlers of Catan" on that list of yours.
Settlers is actually a board game. It's a lot of fun, too; I recommend checking it out if you haven't yet.
The only turn based games I've played that I liked are KOTOR and Paper Mario. The story in both KOTOR games and the quirkiness in Paper Mario made up for the combat (though if you're going to use turn based, KOTOR did it the right way).
Maybe I'm not experienced enough, but in both games there really wasn't any skill involved. It's all chance.
Maybe I'm not experienced enough, but in both games there really wasn't any skill involved. It's all chance.