10 réponses à ce sujet

[thebadblackcat]

So what do you prefer. i'm developing a game(project) for my master's degree, so i just need gamer's preference or point of view.

So basically what do you enjoy the most and why?

[Dominus]

As much as I can appreciate Turn-Based now and then, I'll always prefer Real-Time. For games of the more adventure-y, RPG or not, I'd want it to feel as immersive as possible. Turn-Based is a significant stretch of reality, so there's always going to be a small barrier with that kind of game. Some games take the "Happy Medium" approach with Pause-and-Play - I favor that style too, though avoid it for unrelated reasons.

[GMagnumm]

turn base cuz it giv me time 2 enjoi da game n while it my turn i can throw a hotpoket n da microwave
turn bas allow multe task tbh

[thebadblackcat]

both of you thx for feedback

 

 

turn base cuz it giv me time 2 enjoi da game n while it my turn i can throw a hotpoket n da microwave
turn bas allow multe task tbh

which game in particular you like or recommend, maybe i can learn something from it.  

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Real Time with space-bar button as pause. Kinda hybrid, right?

 

I think turn based is getting popular because it doesn't need a fast mind. You can sit and think about some tactics and then choose the best (and it doesn't need more than 10 seconds). This is accurate for (TB vs RT) Strategy games, for RPGs whatever... inb4 someone opposes me.

 

It gets sad really fast if you're playing a RTS on hard difficulty without pause button! lol

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

turn base cuz it giv me time 2 enjoi da game n while it my turn i can throw a hotpoket n da microwave
turn bas allow multe task tbh

omfg. wen u ****** bak, u bin hella mised tbh

[frustratemyself]

I like both. I probably play more real time games than turn based but I think turn based is a bit less common.

[eternal_napalm]

Real time, but I loved V.A.T.S. in Fallout 3 & Fallout: New Vegas

[Ren Roche]

I prefer real time. 

[bEVEsthda]

Turn base.

 

But: It's not that simple. Real Time, for instance, rarely is just real time. More typically, it's a design method to deny ahead intelligence gathering and planning. This is done for the purpose of giving the game a "trial & reload" type of gameplay. This increases the gametime by loading more action-play into the game, by forcing the player to progressively try and fail a section, in order to learn enough to beat it. This is an archaic video game design principle. It's been ruling game design on 'arcade' and console games since the age of Space Invaders.

'trial & reload' breaks role playing, as well as immersion. But, then again, many so called modern "RPG"s have nothing to do with either.

I also feels it utterly and completely ruins the adventure-experience I want to get from RPGs, by trivializing death.

 

Real 'real time' doesn't have to be 'trial & reload'. Excellent examples of that are the E.S. games, F.O. and a FPS like Far Cry.

 

Personally, I've enjoyed my fair share of trial & reload games, but frankly I've grown to despise the design principle over the years. I feel game design should progress, and start offering players a different kind of experience. And this should particularly apply to RPGs, as these aspire to offer role playing and immersion. Part of that (immersion and roleplaying) is precisely for the character to take responsibility for outcome, for worrying about what lies ahead, intelligence gathering and planning.

 

Genuine Turn Based, otoh, is IMO an anakronism in a computer driven game. Some good that can be said for it, is that it offers time for thinking and considerations, and, for that reason, retains the open window for role playing. But the main advantage, over real time systems, is that it offers an implementation where the character  does the fighting!  And not  the player!  And this is very important! The fact that a lot of posters in this thread don't recognize or take notice of this huge concept, only shows how far DA2, ME2 and ME3 have corrupted the 'RPG' label, and how massively the audience that frequents these boards have changed.

 

But Turn Based is inherited from pen & paper, where it's necessary to keep complexity down. On computers, it should be possible to create better systems.

A computer can shedule the intents, reaction times and actions on a timeline, and then re-shedule reactions and re-reactions. So what I'd really like to see, is more of a Time-line based gameplay with auto-pauses for new decisions.

 

I've played a lot of action games. On consoles, particularly fighting games. On PC, FPS and things like flying simulators. But that personal, intense action-experience has nothing to do with why or how I play RPGs. To understand the personal intensity - experienced when playing an action game - as "immersion", as an above poster did, is, frankly, a bit clue-less. The RPG experience should be different, and put the role-played character  in the focus. Typically, I also want an exclusively intellectual experience when I sit down with an RPG.

 

And so does a large, potential market for RPGs. When the industry converges "RPG" to the same old, tired 'Space Invaders'-formula, that all game genres seem to converge to in recent years, they're doing themselves a huge disservice, by limiting themselves to a small, distilled market segement, and shrinking the video-game market even more, by further distilling it.

[thebadblackcat]

Turn base.

 

But: It's not that simple. Real Time, for instance, rarely is just real time. More typically, it's a design method to deny ahead intelligence gathering and planning. This is done for the purpose of giving the game a "trial & reload" type of gameplay. This increases the gametime by loading more action-play into the game, by forcing the player to progressively try and fail a section, in order to learn enough to beat it. This is an archaic video game design principle. It's been ruling game design on 'arcade' and console games since the age of Space Invaders.

'trial & reload' breaks role playing, as well as immersion. But, then again, many so called modern "RPG"s have nothing to do with either.

I also feels it utterly and completely ruins the adventure-experience I want to get from RPGs, by trivializing death.

 

Real 'real time' doesn't have to be 'trial & reload'. Excellent examples of that are the E.S. games, F.O. and a FPS like Far Cry.

 

Personally, I've enjoyed my fair share of trial & reload games, but frankly I've grown to despise the design principle over the years. I feel game design should progress, and start offering players a different kind of experience. And this should particularly apply to RPGs, as these aspire to offer role playing and immersion. Part of that (immersion and roleplaying) is precisely for the character to take responsibility for outcome, for worrying about what lies ahead, intelligence gathering and planning.

 

Genuine Turn Based, otoh, is IMO an anakronism in a computer driven game. Some good that can be said for it, is that it offers time for thinking and considerations, and, for that reason, retains the open window for role playing. But the main advantage, over real time systems, is that it offers an implementation where the character  does the fighting!  And not  the player!  And this is very important! The fact that a lot of posters in this thread don't recognize or take notice of this huge concept, only shows how far DA2, ME2 and ME3 have corrupted the 'RPG' label, and how massively the audience that frequents these boards have changed.

 

But Turn Based is inherited from pen & paper, where it's necessary to keep complexity down. On computers, it should be possible to create better systems.

A computer can shedule the intents, reaction times and actions on a timeline, and then re-shedule reactions and re-reactions. So what I'd really like to see, is more of a Time-line based gameplay with auto-pauses for new decisions.

 

I've played a lot of action games. On consoles, particularly fighting games. On PC, FPS and things like flying simulators. But that personal, intense action-experience has nothing to do with why or how I play RPGs. To understand the personal intensity - experienced when playing an action game - as "immersion", as an above poster did, is, frankly, a bit clue-less. The RPG experience should be different, and put the role-played character  in the focus. Typically, I also want an exclusively intellectual experience when I sit down with an RPG.

 

And so does a large, potential market for RPGs. When the industry converges "RPG" to the same old, tired 'Space Invaders'-formula, that all game genres seem to converge to in recent years, they're doing themselves a huge disservice, by limiting themselves to a small, distilled market segement, and shrinking the video-game market even more, by further distilling it.

thx really appreciated you speak like prof. of my university. And  i'm aware of that realtime is just illusion in reality it's just execute certain cases from datatset predefined by programmer compare to traditional and popular dice role system from turn based which is totally random (use predefined use cases but mostly randomized). As true AI is non exist in this world, the nearest thing you found is in turn based games rather than realtime, that's why CHESS on hardess difficulty is nearly impossible for casual gamer(non frequent chess player's) than beating dark souls.