That's why Quake is better, cause you have to use your brain, aim, predict and so much other stuff, all at the same time
You guys can disagree with this, but i don't feel turn based combat was ever meant for video games.. It only exists to avoid the chaos both players and NPC's can create. So the turn-based combat does not make a true RPG. Not by a long shot. (Also, it is harder to calculate "i hit him several times" move... yeah..)
videogame bit aside, that's very true. "Chaos" is also the right technical word for it...
Well your choice of words are very poor. because we don't know which person it would be, if it is first person or both first/third person then turn based combat have no meaning, if third person only, you could do something like Neverwinter Nights, where turns are automatic and only skills makes your combat in your favor.
You have a habit of moving the goal posts when you begin to lose an argument. Let me show you how you do that:
But then you pointed out, specifically, what is probably the most overpowered FPS weapon of all time, the Quake 3 Railgun.
One overpowered weapon from one heavily outdated game is not suitable for use as an example of how a particular gameplay style works across and entire genre.
I also explained that I did actually understand the principles of "Weapon Balancing".
- First, you state that "weapons have nothing to to with balancing", then you explain how 'castration' is used to balance over powered weapons. Apart from the fact your statement is counter intuitive, I wasn't talking about gameplay balancing, but specifically weapon balancing. That is what your origional point was about. Weapons, not gameplay.
- I didn't bother addressing the 'Laser o' Death' issue because it is an out dated style that is very rarely used in FPS games these days. It is an anomaly, not the norm.
- The technology used in creating and playing games has moved on and can handle more sophisticated methods of play. And yes, Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are considered great games. This is because they are cult classics. They do not stand up to the current standard of FPS gameplay. "Because technology has moved on!!!"
- Unmateched you say... Well, Counter Strike was much bigger than UT, (but you haven't played it, so I don't suppose you knew that,) and it wasn't far behind Q3. An updated version has recently been released and it's almost a non-starter... What happened to Quake 4 and Doom 3? More non-starters... I wonder why that could be...
I guess people are too busy playing COD and Battlefield. That's probably because these games have taken elements developed in games like Quake and CS and they have evolved. Many more lements not present in the games we played 15 years ago are now basic requirements in games.
Quake and UT had no grenades. Name one FPS released in the last 5 years that didn't have grenades.
Quake and UT made very little use of cover, forcing the players to rely on mobility as their sole defence. Many more avenues of defencive gameplay are present in modern games, including camo and even diversionary tactics.
Do COD or Battlefield use Hitscan weapons or bunny-hopping? No.
Are the most powerful weapons in COD or Battlefield, (nube-tube not withstanding,) the easiest weapons to use? No.
Are COD and Battlefield considered the current industry standard for FPS gaming? Yes.
Now, can you see how you have taken your origional point, that powerful wapons are too easy to use, and you have gone off at a tangent about game design. All this time you have been unable to face the fact that said point is incorrect because it is only pertinent to a select period of time in gaming.
But let's see what you are up to now...
Real time combat being compared to chess stops at the basic 'out maneuvering' and 'out witting' principles.
Turn based combat actually plays like chess. You stop and consider your moves, taking time to consider their long term consequences. It is far less reactionary, less pressured and has far fewer unknown variables than realtime."
I stand by what I replied: "So basically what I wrote then."
I am certainly not disputing that making different choices about what you use and where you use it is fundamental to player success, these things are basic.
Out maneuvering does not just refer to physical movement, but it can also refer to many other forms of circumventing obstacles, (both tangible and intangilbe,) presented by an opponent.
Out witting isn't just having a better plan, but it can refer being better prepared and setting traps or even coaxing an opponent out of a prepared position.
Stop taking every word I use in such a literal sense and maybe then you will actually get what I am saying.
My point is that much of the pressure is relieved in turn based combat, because not only do players have much more time to make their decisions, but their personal skill requirements are greatly reduced and their tactical ability is much more important. Real time combat puts a much higher requirement on a players ability to react to sudden changes and adapt to new situations.
Don't get me wrong, turn based games are not bad. The function has it's place and games like Shadow Run Returns suit them well. But turn based games are also a niche that appeals to a more limited player base than real time combat.
To put this into a context I am sure you will fully grasp, do you think that Quake 3 would have been the same game it was if it was turn based?
I didn't think so.
I pointed out that this isn't usually the case. The most damaging weapons often have factors added to them so that the user requires a higher level of personal skill to use them, thus making them harder to use, not easier.
But then you pointed out, specifically, what is probably the most overpowered FPS weapon of all time, the Quake 3 Railgun.
One overpowered weapon from one heavily outdated game is not suitable for use as an example of how a particular gameplay style works across and entire genre.
Yes. No arguments there. But again, highly subjective.
Yes, it's called sniping. Of course, almost all modern games use drift in scopes, making it much more difficult to achieve. Then of course you need to lead targets these days because actual projectiles are used and tracked so you need to calculate where the round will connect based on distance and target speed. Again, point is moot.
Which is why the vast majority of FPS games do not have them anymore. It's unbalanced and it's outdated.
I also explained that I did actually understand the principles of "Weapon Balancing".
Now, I did'nt bothe replying to this because you just move the goal posts whenever I pointed out a flaw in your reasoning. But you're doing it again so unless I intend to just ignore all your input in future I have to deal with this now.
- First, you state that "weapons have nothing to to with balancing", then you explain how 'castration' is used to balance over powered weapons. Apart from the fact your statement is counter intuitive, I wasn't talking about gameplay balancing, but specifically weapon balancing. That is what your origional point was about. Weapons, not gameplay.
- I didn't bother addressing the 'Laser o' Death' issue because it is an out dated style that is very rarely used in FPS games these days. It is an anomaly, not the norm.
- The technology used in creating and playing games has moved on and can handle more sophisticated methods of play. And yes, Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament are considered great games. This is because they are cult classics. They do not stand up to the current standard of FPS gameplay. "Because technology has moved on!!!"
- Unmateched you say... Well, Counter Strike was much bigger than UT, (but you haven't played it, so I don't suppose you knew that,) and it wasn't far behind Q3. An updated version has recently been released and it's almost a non-starter... What happened to Quake 4 and Doom 3? More non-starters... I wonder why that could be...
I guess people are too busy playing COD and Battlefield. That's probably because these games have taken elements developed in games like Quake and CS and they have evolved. Many more lements not present in the games we played 15 years ago are now basic requirements in games.
Quake and UT had no grenades. Name one FPS released in the last 5 years that didn't have grenades.
Quake and UT made very little use of cover, forcing the players to rely on mobility as their sole defence. Many more avenues of defencive gameplay are present in modern games, including camo and even diversionary tactics.
Do COD or Battlefield use Hitscan weapons or bunny-hopping? No.
Are the most powerful weapons in COD or Battlefield, (nube-tube not withstanding,) the easiest weapons to use? No.
Are COD and Battlefield considered the current industry standard for FPS gaming? Yes.
Now, can you see how you have taken your origional point, that powerful wapons are too easy to use, and you have gone off at a tangent about game design. All this time you have been unable to face the fact that said point is incorrect because it is only pertinent to a select period of time in gaming.
But let's see what you are up to now...
"Any form of competative activity can be compared to the principles of chess. That's a no brainer.
Real time combat being compared to chess stops at the basic 'out maneuvering' and 'out witting' principles.
Turn based combat actually plays like chess. You stop and consider your moves, taking time to consider their long term consequences. It is far less reactionary, less pressured and has far fewer unknown variables than realtime."
What exactly did I 'make up'?
I stand by what I replied: "So basically what I wrote then."
'Out maneuvering' and 'out witting' IS the use of tactics. It may not be the same word, but they equate to the same thing. It's like you are arguing for the sake of it.
I am certainly not disputing that making different choices about what you use and where you use it is fundamental to player success, these things are basic.
Out maneuvering does not just refer to physical movement, but it can also refer to many other forms of circumventing obstacles, (both tangible and intangilbe,) presented by an opponent.
Out witting isn't just having a better plan, but it can refer being better prepared and setting traps or even coaxing an opponent out of a prepared position.
Stop taking every word I use in such a literal sense and maybe then you will actually get what I am saying.
My point is that much of the pressure is relieved in turn based combat, because not only do players have much more time to make their decisions, but their personal skill requirements are greatly reduced and their tactical ability is much more important. Real time combat puts a much higher requirement on a players ability to react to sudden changes and adapt to new situations.
Don't get me wrong, turn based games are not bad. The function has it's place and games like Shadow Run Returns suit them well. But turn based games are also a niche that appeals to a more limited player base than real time combat.
To put this into a context I am sure you will fully grasp, do you think that Quake 3 would have been the same game it was if it was turn based?
I didn't think so.
It is not because my choice of words are poor, it is because your reasoning is wrong. And it doesn't matter if the game is third or the first person view, turn-based combat doesn't work all that well with video games and it is too slow for most to enjoy it. Period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game#Platforms
"Video game" is a general term. What is your point? Really?
Also, i wasn't aware that you were here to judge if my words are technically right or not.
You must have read the minds of this mythical "most" to throw such strong claims. Or maybe you have made some cross-industry statistical surveys to back that up?
There are lots of games where turn based combat works very well and actually gives games a lot of depth and tension, XCOM being the prime example.
There is a reason why examples turn-based combat are less and less common. I did not conduct such surveys but you can bet developers did. Are you claiming to know better than 90% of developers? (Seeing rare few turn-based games are these days.) Or are you claiming that they are idiots who are out of touch with gamers? From same logic, are you claiming CDPR made a mistake by not making Witcher games turn-based?
I guess my point is, why would i need surveys while you never do..
And like i've always said, thats just your opinion.. Not everybody enjoys same things you do...
Well, in my post I didn't make any bold and strong statements like you did. Something along the lines of turn-based combat doesn't work all that well with video games and it is too slow for most to enjoy it. Period. . You even put "period" at the end, like you're stating an absolute thruth noone should question. So I'm just asking - how did you come to such a concrete conclusion?
And I did not claim any of the things you accuse me of and the kind of rhetoric tricks you're using here is just too obvious for anyone not to see through them. So do not put any words in my mouth that I did not use.
Exactly. And that's why I usually use a phrase "in my opinion" while you say "And it doesn't matter if the game is third or the first person view, turn-based combat doesn't work all that well with video games and it is too slow for most to enjoy it. Period." The difference is clear.
Thats funny.. Really? You make it sound like you never make any bold statements.. Forgive if these quotes are not exact, but you are known to make statements like "Companions wont add any value to the game." (You can speak for most of us on that? It adds value to my gameplay.) or in scripted enemies thread "No such thing in CP2077 please. It's lazy and broken development."? (I can list many more if you like.) Claiming scripted enemies make lazy and broken development is not a bold statement? I also vaguely remember you saying game would be much better if they didn't bother with vehicles. Where are you getting your data, really?
Also, i'm not using any tricks. Developers largely dropped turn-based gameplay for a reason and not just for convenience. They dropped it because gamers largely rather play real time games. Thats a fact you cannot deny. And i'm sure they did their research&surveys. (They don't go and make games blindly.) And you conveniently ignored that point in your post and tried to focus on who made what bold statements.. Nice trick....
People...and I know this is funny coming from me...but you're getting pretty aggressive in a lot of your posts. And you define things in a way that portrays people that disagree with you as fools.
You know that's my job!
Every time a moderator has to say tone it down or enough on this topic or -god forbid- conversation over is really a failure of ours as a community to speak civilly and communicate reasonably. i would bet dollars to doughnuts they are close to doing it in here now.
Now, we've done pretty damn well so far, I think, but we could do better. There are two ways to have a great discussion community that encourages people to post contradicting opinions without fear of flames: the first is to have a civil, friendly community. The second is to have very, very active mods.
And moderators are, of course, working for the Man. We don't want them to be -happy- crushing dissent do we? Hell no!
So let's try to avoid phrases like, "So the turn-based combat does not make a true RPG.", "To put this into a context I am sure you will fully grasp", "It is not because my choice of words are poor, it is because your reasoning is wrong."
I regret only that Wisdom wasn't here to use as an example.
Also, all the above totally doesn't apply to me and Wisdom arguing because we have egos of hammered iron. Hammered. Iron.
Edited to be more non specific, because tact.
You know that's my job!
Every time a moderator has to say tone it down or enough on this topic or -god forbid- conversation over is really a failure of ours as a community to speak civilly and communicate reasonably. i would bet dollars to doughnuts they are close to doing it in here now.
Now, we've done pretty damn well so far, I think, but we could do better. There are two ways to have a great discussion community that encourages people to post contradicting opinions without fear of flames: the first is to have a civil, friendly community. The second is to have very, very active mods.
And moderators are, of course, working for the Man. We don't want them to be -happy- crushing dissent do we? Hell no!
So let's try to avoid phrases like, "So the turn-based combat does not make a true RPG.", "To put this into a context I am sure you will fully grasp", "It is not because my choice of words are poor, it is because your reasoning is wrong."
I regret only that Wisdom wasn't here to use as an example.
Also, all the above totally doesn't apply to me and Wisdom arguing because we have egos of hammered iron. Hammered. Iron.
Edited to be more non specific, because tact.
Turn-based combat is alive and well. HoMM got it's sixth iteration, XCOM: Enemy Unknown went back to turn-based as opposed to real time which is what they used in XCOM: Apocalypse, there's Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns, and about a million different games on the Asian market, and I'm sure some games I'm not even aware of.
The fact of the matter here is that none of your, nor mine, opinions matter beyond what they are, opinions, and they're called opinions for a reason. We all have our own flavor of ice cream. One might like turn-based combat, another might say "true RPG's are real time", and then again someone might say there's no such thing as a true role-playing game on the PC or on a console as role-playing games are meant to be played with a pen, paper and some dice.
It's not worth fighting over. You're not going to establish some rule of law here, carved in stone. It's all personal preference.
The fact of the matter here is that none of your, nor mine, opinions matter beyond what they are, opinions, and they're called opinions for a reason. We all have our own flavor of ice cream. One might like turn-based combat, another might say "true RPG's are real time", and then again someone might say there's no such thing as a true role-playing game on the PC or on a console as role-playing games are meant to be played with a pen, paper and some dice.
It's not worth fighting over. You're not going to establish some rule of law here, carved in stone. It's all personal preference.
Now, there is a reason why i'm a bit aggressive lately.. Remember i was banned and given an infraction supposedly because i insulted Decaton.. Only thing i said was "You are not great on reading are you" which was clearly a joke.. A joke like you often make, like everybody makes. I only wish he was the one who got insulted (As you know he had no reason to) and my punishment had a base. Those moderators that made the decision say a lot worse things (as a joke) from time to time and when i did it, i got banned for it. They used it as a convenient excuse. Not to mention those high and mighty admins who can't be bothered to reply. Like Dragonbird always says, if you don't like it, contact admins.. But don't expect them to contact you back..
So, sorry for getting aggressive, getting banned unjustly does that to you.. I wonder if they ban me again just for being aggressive..
This is probably not a good way of avoiding it, so let's move on, shall we?
I have no intention to avoid anything.. Also, you two just interrupted a fine argument about turn-based combat..
And that's my point my friend.. In grand scale of things, they are so few in number, you can easily point them out..
Now i never said my opinion is always the right one, but my point on real-time games mostly preferred by gamers is a correct one. You just have to look what type of games sold more lately.. (And to me Shadowrun returns is a wasted potential.. A joke.. So, lets just move on..)
What the wot. Dunno about this habit. Guess i was trying to explain things.
Imagine shooting anything you want, even projectiles at whatever rof or reloading or whatever you want, in a straight line. As the range increases, so does the damage and weapons' range in games are potentially infinite till they get to the map limits and restrictions (the way all designers deal with every fps game weapons since wolfestein)...an infinite range with a infinite damage is the maximum output you can expect from a gun. It's the best thing it terms of risk and reward. The weapons behaving the closest to this kind of laser of death are rails. snipers and chainguns. This is a problem for games featuring open maps and predictable movements such as military shooters or rare stuff like tribes, while quake dealt with it the best featuring tight maps (limiting chaingun power) and unpredictable movements without sacrificing movement speed or messing with players' aim (which the "factors" you told me about do, though none of them are effective as bullet spread and ironsights).
In one of you replys, probably the first one, you told me about powerful weapons with poor accuracy, which is the base to Bullet Spread, right when i stated bullet spread and ironsights undermine aiming skill ('cause they mess with bullets, put restraints on movement, mouse sensitivity and aiming that don't help noobs and crap on pros). That accuracy thing alone is meant to dumb players' skills down and thus the game, it's something you can even go around quickscoping in many games, and falls much better in the Recoil alternative mech since bullets don't go randomly all over the place, keeping acc low as it should be, thus rewarding player's aiming skills.
I didn't really talk about 10 years old games and their weapons. I talked about mech theory which is not outdated at all as arenas and "old school games" are all similar to each other despite the way they are shown through marketing. I listed games suffering from too much power in players' hands, tribes and shootmania are from this decade while quake and ut happens to be the best shooters ever. I'm not the one who came up with the deus ex series example and i'm not the one who made up things about skill, core mechanics and balance all togheter while putting things seen in other games into the mix. What i originally did is pointing out what make shooter elements different from anything stats related. "New games", "Technology" or w/e didn't mean anything at all to these concepts.
As i told you, you don't balance weapons. Balance is easy and comes after mechanics, and weapons are part of the core gameplay mechanics which map gameplay is built around. Balancing solely concerns tactics that should help and work against players at the same time. Any other "fix" and you generate "chaos" breaking the game...that's evident in some examples like online rpgs allowing complex stuff like skills and stats in rpgs making them good for social gaming, leading to classes and time consuming balance. EvE online took years to get a decent balance.
allow me to quote this bit as it stands on its own...
There are warsow and quake cpm, among countless clones. Wasn't really talking about communities. Wouldn't expect a good old shooter from ID or Epic Games, as they went for consoles. Which have loads of fps's with the same core mechanics like the ones from cod and bf which can't be improved because of their controllers, requiring stuff like slow motion, assists, bullet spread,low movement speed etcetc in lots of games. So you can see you are talking about console and multiplatform games leaving stuff like project free fall, legions overdrive 2, natural selection 2, shootmania, tribes and unfortunate painkiller/serious sam clones aside.
Quake and UT did have covers. And granades. They didn't have cover systems and loads of artificial covers, only natural covers.
Have a look to what a cover system does. Same applies for military fps's.
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/GearsMultiplayerMapTheory.html
COD and BF are basically about hitscan weapons 0o. Having a realistic behaviour in long range shots wouldn't and doesn't change a thing since the bullets are too fast to dodge.
Are cod and bf considered the current industry standart for fps gaming? Maybe on console:/ Nowhere else. Their regen mechanics are a strong flaws in those games.
another bit...
I didn't say a thing about out manuvering/witting, they are generic terms, but i went ahead. Explaining the posts is faster. All these kinds of combats are core mechanics following the same rules once they are put in designers' hands. Skill is still there as players will have to master stuff., whatever it is. I agree about the niche stuff though, it's a matter of taste.
We were talking about the chess thing, and the best shooters happen to share everything with them. In the quake example from before i cut the aiming skill to show the parallels with chess, as players choose pick ups/items/weapons thus directions thus attempting or suffering ambushes like chess pieces. Or checkers if that helps....this goes for with 1 on 1 shooters like arenas and single player shooters.
Team based stuff attemps to different by removing pick ups but, in the end, a lot of them make use of pick ups and environmental substitutes (such as water to give your position away) in order to keep that layer of gameplay depth. They remain chess games clothed with weapons and pick ups. Classes tend to be the only things to give variety to team based games, such as tf2 or the watered down CS clone that is Neotkyo.
haven't checked the grammar but i'm tired
Please don't threaten people. It is distasteful and you have no right to treat him/her in such manner. (It sounded like it was a threat... I may be wrong.) I hate it when moderators go power crazy. It is not a good sign.
WOAH! Wall of text... WALL.OF.TEXT! MOTHER OF ALL TEXTS!
I should calm down..