Are turn-based games a dying breed? If so why?
Author
I was wondering are turn based games dead? If they are dying off why do you think that is so? What is the attraction that people have to real time games and why is there that attraction?
It seems like people have not explored modern turn based games and all the power it can afford the player if implamented correctly. People seem to think that if the player has to "wait" that the wait is unjustified.
Feel free to give any thoughs on Turn-Based VS. Real-Time games. I would love to see what other people think of the whole comparision.
[spell checked somewhat]
[edited by - Critical_Waste on October 4, 2002 4:41:01 AM]
Turn-Based games are dying for a few reasons.
The current generation of gamers are more interested in being able to just jump into a game, kill a few baddies and then jump out. You can''t do that as easily with a Turn-Based game.
Turn-Based games usually require more thought than FPS. Today''s mind-numbed TV generation is used to not having to think very much to be entertained.
Multiplayer internet games can''t really be Turn-Based. Not for more than a couple players anyway. You end up spending more time waiting for the other players to play their turn than you do playing yours. Doesn''t make for a lot of fun.
What can we do to fix this? Probably nothing. But adding Play by Email to turn based games couldn''t hurt. Instead of having to wait for the other player to do his turn, you can do yours, send it off, and go about your business until the other player does his turn. Downside is having to wait, maybe only doing a turn every day and a half or so average.
I wasn''t trying to flame this generation. I am a part of this generation. I would think that most of the "this generation" talk doesn''t apply to the people here. The people who frequent these forums are more likely to have had a background with turn-based strategy board games and table-top RPGs. "This generation" was meant to refer to the majority of people buying the games off the shelf.
Anyway. These are my thoughts. I love Turn-Based games. One of my favorites is Empire Deluxe (though I was introduced to it a long time ago in it''s monocrome text version).
£§
The current generation of gamers are more interested in being able to just jump into a game, kill a few baddies and then jump out. You can''t do that as easily with a Turn-Based game.
Turn-Based games usually require more thought than FPS. Today''s mind-numbed TV generation is used to not having to think very much to be entertained.
Multiplayer internet games can''t really be Turn-Based. Not for more than a couple players anyway. You end up spending more time waiting for the other players to play their turn than you do playing yours. Doesn''t make for a lot of fun.
What can we do to fix this? Probably nothing. But adding Play by Email to turn based games couldn''t hurt. Instead of having to wait for the other player to do his turn, you can do yours, send it off, and go about your business until the other player does his turn. Downside is having to wait, maybe only doing a turn every day and a half or so average.
I wasn''t trying to flame this generation. I am a part of this generation. I would think that most of the "this generation" talk doesn''t apply to the people here. The people who frequent these forums are more likely to have had a background with turn-based strategy board games and table-top RPGs. "This generation" was meant to refer to the majority of people buying the games off the shelf.
Anyway. These are my thoughts. I love Turn-Based games. One of my favorites is Empire Deluxe (though I was introduced to it a long time ago in it''s monocrome text version).
£§
current trends in online multiplayer gaming allow for streamlined realtime play. this makes turnbased games a bit tiresome to those less patient players.
I agree that a correctly implemented turn based game could be the next big thing, but I think most people developing games these days don''t have the freedom to risk making a game that doesn''t fall into the guaranteed gain pile.
George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!
I agree that a correctly implemented turn based game could be the next big thing, but I think most people developing games these days don''t have the freedom to risk making a game that doesn''t fall into the guaranteed gain pile.
George D. FiliotisAre you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!
*strips naked, douses himself in gasoline, holds out match*
I find them, well, extremely dull. Sorry.
Before you set me alight, and do nasty things to my charred orifices, understand that this is only my opinion. But, like LoneStranger said, it seems to be a view shared by the majority. I find real-time much more fun and exciting than any turn-based game I''ve ever played. Plus, these days, what with programming and earning a living, I need games I can just jump in and out of. Sure, there are lots of people (many of whom you will find on these very pages) that prefer turn-based, and it would be sad if they went away altogether. But game developers will make what they think will sell. Personally, I am still lamenting the death of 2D adventures, sniffle
pan narrans
Study + Hard Work + Loud Profanity = Good Code
I find them, well, extremely dull. Sorry.
Before you set me alight, and do nasty things to my charred orifices, understand that this is only my opinion. But, like LoneStranger said, it seems to be a view shared by the majority. I find real-time much more fun and exciting than any turn-based game I''ve ever played. Plus, these days, what with programming and earning a living, I need games I can just jump in and out of. Sure, there are lots of people (many of whom you will find on these very pages) that prefer turn-based, and it would be sad if they went away altogether. But game developers will make what they think will sell. Personally, I am still lamenting the death of 2D adventures, sniffle
pan narrans
Study + Hard Work + Loud Profanity = Good Code
My experience with "Turn Based" has been limited to RPGs on the console, however, I have noticed something amidst them. On most of the ATB final fantasy''s, you have a Quick Quick move move attack attack ultima ultima mentality. Go fast before the enemy gets to go. I didn''t like it too much. I ended up making a lot of bad choices in this model, usually because the way FF prioritizes stuff, I end up acting smartly for the situation, but the situation then changes and I''m not allowed to correct for it. That leads to valuable xpotions being wasted on the dead.
Then, we had the turn based games, where at the top of each round you make your decisions, and then the battle rolls out according to your commands. I''ll throw Final Fantasy Tactics into this model as well, even though the command input is slightly different. Whats the fundamental interest here is that the player has some good time to work out a tactical solution to the problem. Here''s where I shine.
From what I gather, the turn based I''m used to has disappeared because players don''t have the patience or attension span for a strategy. My whole opinion on the subject is hell-yes, bring it back. Though, I imagine we''ll just get more bigger and brighter explosions, and less and less decision making on matters of tactics.
-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.
Then, we had the turn based games, where at the top of each round you make your decisions, and then the battle rolls out according to your commands. I''ll throw Final Fantasy Tactics into this model as well, even though the command input is slightly different. Whats the fundamental interest here is that the player has some good time to work out a tactical solution to the problem. Here''s where I shine.
From what I gather, the turn based I''m used to has disappeared because players don''t have the patience or attension span for a strategy. My whole opinion on the subject is hell-yes, bring it back. Though, I imagine we''ll just get more bigger and brighter explosions, and less and less decision making on matters of tactics.
-> Will Bubel
-> Machine wash cold, tumble dry.
quote:Posted by SymphonicI agree with this totally, except I''d swap "developing" with "publishing".
I agree that a correctly implemented turn based game could be the next big thing, but I think most people developing games these days don''t have the freedom to risk making a game that doesn''t fall into the guaranteed gain pile.
Another reason is that the AI typically is either not challenging enough or not interactive enough to match multiplayer. And yet multiplayer turn-based games, even in simultaneous mode (which I hate btw) are just too time-consuming for all by the most die-hard wargamers. So if you want interesting opposition, multi-playerRTS seems to be the only answer.
I''m working on a turn-based game (by myself) that will hopefully solve that problem, while allowing for all of the coolness of turn-based gameplay (time to think, chat, eat, drink).
I find that the recently released "Golden Sun" for GameBoy Advance was a huge hit. I believe the reason for this was the amazing special effects. In order to revive turn-based games, we must use all the latest technology to make it interesting to "this generation".
quote:Original post by LoneStranger
I wasn't trying to flame this generation. I am a part of this generation. I would think that most of the "this generation" talk doesn't apply to the people here. The people who frequent these forums are more likely to have had a background with turn-based strategy board games and table-top RPGs. "This generation" was meant to refer to the majority of people buying the games off the shelf.
Can you specify what you mean by "this generation?" One would think that a game such as Couter-Strike is the game of "this generation" since its an FPS and for some strange reason FPS is supposed to be the most popular genre?? This is simply not so. I belive this misconception comes from the generalization of young males and their hobbies concerning electronic entertainment. Although Counter-Strike is the most popular FPS (if its not, then pretend it is for the sake of this argument), it is certainly not the most overall popular game. In a IDSA survey, the majority of compuer gamers (42%) are over the age of 35. And in some reports (I forget which one) they show games such as "Roller Coaster Tycoon" and "The Sims" as being the top selling games.
The lack of interest from "this generation" towards turn-based games is NOT a contributing factor to a theoretical dying popularity to turn-based games.
Now that I got that off my chest. Let me give you a valid response: No they are not a dying breed of games. Arn't there games poping about all the time (which are aimed at "this generation") such as "Age of Wonders" and "Civilizations III"?
What I have found is that Chess is actually the most played game on the computer ever. Modern wargames are basicly derived from chess.
[edited by - Shambles on October 3, 2002 11:11:32 PM]
The reason turn-based games are going down hill is they are too easy(basically). When I play, I don''t like to give each of my people the same experience(when I control multiple people, I would simply kill them all with one person, and since experience is usually given to who does what, I have one powerful guy)... this usually happens, though, because poor balancing(one person being able to kill easier than the others early in the game). If I only controlled one person it would be fine.
Look at this example:
Bob is waiting behind a wall to ambush the next person he sees, Jim is running around, looking for people to kill(its an online war game of some type). Jim runs around the corner and...
In a turn-based game he moves, then on bobs turn he gets shot(or whatever), since its turn-based(they could hide it, and that would help, but...), he probably sees the miss, or if he gets hit, the hit, and immediately knows what is going on. What ensues will probably be the same thing over and over, for everytime person A ambushes person B. The balancing must be -PERFECT- in a turn-based game, because each turn is important and without limitations on using magic like ultima every turn(minus running out of magic, you do have a lot), its balancing is flawed.
However, in an action game many things can happen. If Bob missed, jim might not even notice the fire. If jim is hit, he looks for the person(in realtime, which makes looking important), frantically(or calmly, depending how good he is) rotating to find him. In the meantime, bob is firing away at jim, and probably has a decent chance at missing still, since jim is probably dancing around like an idiot.
You get my point by now, even if the turn-based game had all the same features of the realtime game(if it calculated what you could see, instead of always showing it, if it randomized more things, instead of setting them in stone, if a moving target was harder to hit... that kind of stuff apparent in realtime games) it still wouldn''t have some features, and its harder to make anyhow. It could have freedom to join and leave at anytime, but probably only at the end of the round, etc... which, like I mentioned, just doesn''t feel the same.
The thing I would really like, though, is for more action games to be rpg inclusive... just because its action doesn''t mean its a fighting or shooting game(soldiers -do- get better after all)... Oh yea, and while there is a lot of easily recognized strategy involved in turn-based, there is even more strategy in realtime games, and it takes a longer time to discover.
Look at this example:
Bob is waiting behind a wall to ambush the next person he sees, Jim is running around, looking for people to kill(its an online war game of some type). Jim runs around the corner and...
In a turn-based game he moves, then on bobs turn he gets shot(or whatever), since its turn-based(they could hide it, and that would help, but...), he probably sees the miss, or if he gets hit, the hit, and immediately knows what is going on. What ensues will probably be the same thing over and over, for everytime person A ambushes person B. The balancing must be -PERFECT- in a turn-based game, because each turn is important and without limitations on using magic like ultima every turn(minus running out of magic, you do have a lot), its balancing is flawed.
However, in an action game many things can happen. If Bob missed, jim might not even notice the fire. If jim is hit, he looks for the person(in realtime, which makes looking important), frantically(or calmly, depending how good he is) rotating to find him. In the meantime, bob is firing away at jim, and probably has a decent chance at missing still, since jim is probably dancing around like an idiot.
You get my point by now, even if the turn-based game had all the same features of the realtime game(if it calculated what you could see, instead of always showing it, if it randomized more things, instead of setting them in stone, if a moving target was harder to hit... that kind of stuff apparent in realtime games) it still wouldn''t have some features, and its harder to make anyhow. It could have freedom to join and leave at anytime, but probably only at the end of the round, etc... which, like I mentioned, just doesn''t feel the same.
The thing I would really like, though, is for more action games to be rpg inclusive... just because its action doesn''t mean its a fighting or shooting game(soldiers -do- get better after all)... Oh yea, and while there is a lot of easily recognized strategy involved in turn-based, there is even more strategy in realtime games, and it takes a longer time to discover.
Probably the wait time, especially in multiplayer.
I play Civilization 3 a fair bit (its getting a multiplayer expansion... whoo!) and I''ve found I''ve taken off ALL of the animations, just so that the game doesn''t take so long.
An option to fix this might be simaltanious turns, some games have it but the problem is: only one unit moves at a time (very irritating). If you had something that played real time, but with a limited number of actions (movement, building, etc) you could do before you had to take another ''turn'', might be the answer.
I play Civilization 3 a fair bit (its getting a multiplayer expansion... whoo!) and I''ve found I''ve taken off ALL of the animations, just so that the game doesn''t take so long.
An option to fix this might be simaltanious turns, some games have it but the problem is: only one unit moves at a time (very irritating). If you had something that played real time, but with a limited number of actions (movement, building, etc) you could do before you had to take another ''turn'', might be the answer.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
