www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Where to, turn-based gaming?
Once upon a time, when computers were still beige boxes that ran pretty slow, all strategy and role-playing games were turn-based. That wasn't so much a design decision, but rather based on the limitations of the platform. As soon as computers became powerful enough to run real-time combat, nearly all strategy games and many role-playing games switched to real-time. Which is a pitty, because often the turn-based games were better and had more depth. Is turn-based gaming heading into history's bin of oblivion?
Turn-based gaming is alive and well on platforms where technical limitations still prevent a move to full real-time combat, for example hand-held consoles. You'll find relatively more turn-based games on hand-helds than on full-size consoles. But with hand-helds like a PSP being already nearly as powerful as a PS2, that limitations is falling. Me buying Tales of Eternia and expecting turn-based combat, but then getting a real-time combat game I didn't like is a good example. Strategy games on hand-helds might be stuck in turn-based for a while, because of the size of the screen. It isn't easy to run real-time strategy on a tiny screen without losing overview.
Another unexpected corner where turn-based combat is still thriving is MMORPGs. Game companies did a good job of disguising it, but at the heart of it a game like World of Warcraft has turn-based combat. There are pseudo-turns, given by the rhythm of the automatic attacks, leaving you generous amounts of time to perform special attacks. Again the reason for this is a technical limitation, the speed of the internet. The timescale of combat is given by the latency of the players, which limits it to tenths of seconds, not milliseconds. And that will be hard to fundamentally change unless the internet changes fundamentally. People will complain if they lose combat because their ping is slightly higher. In Final Fantasy XI there was a controversy once, where American players felt disadvantaged when trying to "tag" named monsters, because Japanese players being closer to the servers always beat them before they even say the named mob spawn.
In single-player games for the PC or next-generation consoles it is getting hard to find major games that are turn-based. Besides Heroes of Might and Magic 5 I can't think of any recent triple-A PC games that are turn-based. But the PC has a big advantage here, a big independant games scene. Indie games are technologically less advanced, plus they cater to audiences that the major game companies consider "niche". So there are lots of indie turn-based games for the PC. No such luck for consoles, due to the proprietary nature of these there are no indie games for them, and thus less and less turn-based games.
So we can only hope that major game companies rediscover the advantages of turn-based games. While real-time combat looks more realistic, turn-based combat is closer to the experience of board games or pen & paper role-playing. By making combat fast, it loses a lot of depth, making fast decisions more important than good tactics. But the gaming population is getting older, and thus less interested in shallow, fast action. Older player like to be challenged intellectually, to think while playing. Not just because they are slower than the teenies, but also because the aren't so easily pleased with flashy graphics and special effects hiding a shallow game. Turn-based franchises like Civilization or HOMM keep selling very well, so there would be room for some new brands in this field. Just because you *can* make combat real-time doesn't mean that this is the best option for strategy and role-playing games.
- posted by Tobold @ 10:38 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
As I've said previously, a lot of RTS games are simply about out-producing your opponent, and winning a battle of attrition.
You amass a huge army, charge the enemy base, and overwhelm it with sheer numbers. Similarly you build sufficient defences to stop the enemy overrunning your base in the meantime.
This applies to Command & Conquer, Warcraft 3, Herzog Zwei, The Settlers, and every other RTS game I can remember playing.
That doesn't mean RTS games aren't fun; in fact I have had a lot of enjoyment from all the above games.
I still find turn-based war games to be more satisfying, but I can't see 2D games being acceptable on the modern consoles like Xbox 360 or PS3.
You amass a huge army, charge the enemy base, and overwhelm it with sheer numbers. Similarly you build sufficient defences to stop the enemy overrunning your base in the meantime.
This applies to Command & Conquer, Warcraft 3, Herzog Zwei, The Settlers, and every other RTS game I can remember playing.
That doesn't mean RTS games aren't fun; in fact I have had a lot of enjoyment from all the above games.
I still find turn-based war games to be more satisfying, but I can't see 2D games being acceptable on the modern consoles like Xbox 360 or PS3.
# posted by 
: 26/7/07 11:41
: 26/7/07 11:41
... at the heart of it a game like World of Warcraft has turn-based combat.
No, it doesn't. I can't go and make a cup of coffee whilst I ponder my next move, because if I do I'll be dead by the time I get back to the keyboard. Combat is performed in real-time, there are no turns.
There are pseudo-turns, given by the rhythm of the automatic attacks, leaving you generous amounts of time to perform special attacks.
Tell that to a spell-caster. The only automatic attack is that of a wand, and you cannot continually fire a wand whilst casting the occasional spell, unlike other damage dealers.
The global cool-down that you take to be a 'psuedo-turn' is simply an intentional slowing down of real-time combat to reduce issues that could be caused by latency and to stop combat from being a 'twitch' game.
No, it doesn't. I can't go and make a cup of coffee whilst I ponder my next move, because if I do I'll be dead by the time I get back to the keyboard. Combat is performed in real-time, there are no turns.
There are pseudo-turns, given by the rhythm of the automatic attacks, leaving you generous amounts of time to perform special attacks.
Tell that to a spell-caster. The only automatic attack is that of a wand, and you cannot continually fire a wand whilst casting the occasional spell, unlike other damage dealers.
The global cool-down that you take to be a 'psuedo-turn' is simply an intentional slowing down of real-time combat to reduce issues that could be caused by latency and to stop combat from being a 'twitch' game.
# posted by : 26/7/07 11:51
: 26/7/07 11:51
I think the one place turn-based gaming shows up regularly is in ports of non-computer games to the computer. Strategy board games made into computer games will obviously be turn based, if they accurate simulate their origins.
And Neverwinter Nights was turn based because it was trying to simulate D&D. Unfortunately, by default it hid the turn-based element. And I found when I ran Game Mastered games for multiple, cooperating players, the turn-based element evaporated. Multi-player adventuring was far too fast for my players to handle, since they couldn't pause or set the game to let them choose a new action each turn.
I'd very much like a multi-player roleplaying game that allowed players the freedom to plan their turns while still providing a pen-and-paper game's depth at attempting to choose combat.
And Neverwinter Nights was turn based because it was trying to simulate D&D. Unfortunately, by default it hid the turn-based element. And I found when I ran Game Mastered games for multiple, cooperating players, the turn-based element evaporated. Multi-player adventuring was far too fast for my players to handle, since they couldn't pause or set the game to let them choose a new action each turn.
I'd very much like a multi-player roleplaying game that allowed players the freedom to plan their turns while still providing a pen-and-paper game's depth at attempting to choose combat.
# posted by : 26/7/07 13:04
: 26/7/07 13:04
alec, I've played an on-line card game that allowed you varying amounts of time to make your play, from 15 seconds to unlimited.
The down side to this is that an opponent can deliberately stretch the game out when it becomes obvious that they are on to a loser (as quitting the game led to a default defeat).
I once played someone who took forever to make a move, and then it turned out that they had fallen asleep!
The down side to this is that an opponent can deliberately stretch the game out when it becomes obvious that they are on to a loser (as quitting the game led to a default defeat).
I once played someone who took forever to make a move, and then it turned out that they had fallen asleep!
# posted by : 26/7/07 15:48
: 26/7/07 15:48
I like turned based combat in any type of complex strategy game. Usually empire management games like Civilization or Galatic Civilization are much better suited to turn based gameplay so you can plan out long term strategies.
The problem is that single player games are starting to die out as more developers learn that living opponents provide the greatest challenge to gamers. Unfortunately turn based combat doesn't translate so well into online play so many developers are putting it on the backburner as an option. I'm not saying multiplayer turn based play is impossible to make. Its just tedious to play.
The problem is that single player games are starting to die out as more developers learn that living opponents provide the greatest challenge to gamers. Unfortunately turn based combat doesn't translate so well into online play so many developers are putting it on the backburner as an option. I'm not saying multiplayer turn based play is impossible to make. Its just tedious to play.
There are still some excellent turn-based strategy RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics, Disgaea or the other NIS SRPGs.
I really prefer turn-based strategy RPGs because of the focus on tactics, strategy and planning over quick reflexes.
I really prefer turn-based strategy RPGs because of the focus on tactics, strategy and planning over quick reflexes.
I disagree that it's the Internet's fault, or you wouldn't see the success of games like the Battlefield series, Half-Life and its progeny, Quake, etc. These games are very much down to split-second timing. I think it has more to do with trying to incorporate such "twitch-based" design into a game like an MMO, that is inherently turn-based.
Yes, your actions are in real-time, but the mechanics of combat are "turn based" in the sense of global cooldowns, cast times, swing times, etc. It's just that your turn happens at the same time as everyone else's turn, and they overlap.
Yes, your actions are in real-time, but the mechanics of combat are "turn based" in the sense of global cooldowns, cast times, swing times, etc. It's just that your turn happens at the same time as everyone else's turn, and they overlap.
# posted by : 26/7/07 19:38
: 26/7/07 19:38
Turn based, more structured around action. This results in macrostrategy, depth and wise choices.
Twitch based, more structured around reaction. This results in microstrategy, simplicity and fast choices.
Both have their advantages and flavor. Some games mix it up with a bit of both. Im sure there is room for improvement on the games that do both twitch and turn based gameplay.
One example of a hybrid is Age of empires, as you could possibly make the game "turn based" but it would result in some rediculasly long games. However, to cure the long game syndrome for such a indepth strategy game they allow players to take their turns at the same time, the strategies very well could be the exact same, but now there is both action/reaction and efficiency to judge your skills.
Twitch based, more structured around reaction. This results in microstrategy, simplicity and fast choices.
Both have their advantages and flavor. Some games mix it up with a bit of both. Im sure there is room for improvement on the games that do both twitch and turn based gameplay.
One example of a hybrid is Age of empires, as you could possibly make the game "turn based" but it would result in some rediculasly long games. However, to cure the long game syndrome for such a indepth strategy game they allow players to take their turns at the same time, the strategies very well could be the exact same, but now there is both action/reaction and efficiency to judge your skills.
As someone who is developing my own MMO board game (Subsume, plug, plug :-), this topic has a particular resonance with me. I think part of the problem is that there is some confusion over what it means to be turn-based. There are really a bunch of game mechanics you need to include when you talk about how a game is played.
Unless the game completely stops and waits for the player to act, it isn't turn-based. The problem with that mechanic, especially for an MMO, is that the amount of time a player waits to move accumulates for every new player that joins the game. Unless you adopt another mechanic, it quickly becomes boring to wait for everyone else to move before you get to act.
What the computer and/or Internet allows is simultaneous action that is mediated by the game server. A game pretty much has to be designed to work for that (e.g., the rules of chess don't cover simultaneous moves), because it is a surprisingly significant change. Instead of a player directly changing the state of the game and, in effect, passing it on to the next player to do the same, now we have a game that exists as it's own environment where players more attempt actions (via an avatar) based on imperfect information.
It's only from there that we can cover what is real-time and what isn't. Sometimes it isn't really clear how the game server deals with time. What is considered turn-based combat is often really just large-time-slice-based. There is a balance that needs to be struck between how complex a game is and how much time is allowed to act. So it does make some sense that an RPG is less inclined to go the way of a twitchy shooter.
It has very little to do with the technical issues and everything to do with how a game is designed to be played. I had to design my own game to scale from a physical board with two players all the way up to millions playing online. It wasn't easy, but in doing it I became very familiar with what turn-based mechanics do and don't buy you. I wouldn't expect turn-based games to disappear any time soon, but maybe what you can look forward to (or lament :-) is a future where games are designed to be played in many different modes or from different aspects. This has a particular crossover with mobile/casual gaming, where people might not be able to play a MMO for 4 hours at night, but might be able to find a bunch of 5 minute gaps throughout the day to play.
Unless the game completely stops and waits for the player to act, it isn't turn-based. The problem with that mechanic, especially for an MMO, is that the amount of time a player waits to move accumulates for every new player that joins the game. Unless you adopt another mechanic, it quickly becomes boring to wait for everyone else to move before you get to act.
What the computer and/or Internet allows is simultaneous action that is mediated by the game server. A game pretty much has to be designed to work for that (e.g., the rules of chess don't cover simultaneous moves), because it is a surprisingly significant change. Instead of a player directly changing the state of the game and, in effect, passing it on to the next player to do the same, now we have a game that exists as it's own environment where players more attempt actions (via an avatar) based on imperfect information.
It's only from there that we can cover what is real-time and what isn't. Sometimes it isn't really clear how the game server deals with time. What is considered turn-based combat is often really just large-time-slice-based. There is a balance that needs to be struck between how complex a game is and how much time is allowed to act. So it does make some sense that an RPG is less inclined to go the way of a twitchy shooter.
It has very little to do with the technical issues and everything to do with how a game is designed to be played. I had to design my own game to scale from a physical board with two players all the way up to millions playing online. It wasn't easy, but in doing it I became very familiar with what turn-based mechanics do and don't buy you. I wouldn't expect turn-based games to disappear any time soon, but maybe what you can look forward to (or lament :-) is a future where games are designed to be played in many different modes or from different aspects. This has a particular crossover with mobile/casual gaming, where people might not be able to play a MMO for 4 hours at night, but might be able to find a bunch of 5 minute gaps throughout the day to play.
# posted by : 26/7/07 20:51
: 26/7/07 20:51
I agree about the lack of good turn-based games. Another feature I really miss is PBEM. I'd love to play more games with my brother who lives 360 miles away, but he rarely has the time to sit at a computer for more that 30 minutes at a time (new Dad). Play by email would allow us to play some games, even though it would take us weeks to finish one!
# posted by : 26/7/07 21:47
: 26/7/07 21:47
Turn based games or otherwise need a reason to exist. The gameplay needs to support it in a meaningful way; if the gameplay really wants to be a fast moving monster bash / treasure grab then turn based hits that big time.
There's good use of turn based technology in the world today - DND licensed games are turn based almost without exception. They allow you to play more free form if you want to, but there's a method where turns take place. You get the strategic elements of placing your dudes where you want them and instructing them to do something very specific. You get to see your combat rolls and make decisions on that outcome. You can pause the gameplay.
In that context it makes sense, because part of the fun of the RPG genre as presented by DND is to have your dude tooled up in a specific way and see the outcome of that - stats and turns makes sense to the fundamental game design.
When we consider something like Diablo - or hell, a shooter - turn based combat is anathemic to the idea of what the gameplay is trying to deliver.
I don't think turn based gaming is dying out - I suspect that if you looked at the market, there's roughly the same number of new turn based games being delivered annually as there always has been. However, the market is much bigger, with more customers, so there's a lot of different genres to chose from. You're almost saying, "I like turn-based, so all RPGs should be turn-based." I appreciate it's an appalling paraphrase, but you get the drift - it's unfair to expect all people to enjoy how you like to play.
So you still get your games that you want to, and so do they. You will sometimes be dissapointed (as you were with Tales) but that's true of anything you get - sometimes you get a car you don't like, etc.
There's good use of turn based technology in the world today - DND licensed games are turn based almost without exception. They allow you to play more free form if you want to, but there's a method where turns take place. You get the strategic elements of placing your dudes where you want them and instructing them to do something very specific. You get to see your combat rolls and make decisions on that outcome. You can pause the gameplay.
In that context it makes sense, because part of the fun of the RPG genre as presented by DND is to have your dude tooled up in a specific way and see the outcome of that - stats and turns makes sense to the fundamental game design.
When we consider something like Diablo - or hell, a shooter - turn based combat is anathemic to the idea of what the gameplay is trying to deliver.
I don't think turn based gaming is dying out - I suspect that if you looked at the market, there's roughly the same number of new turn based games being delivered annually as there always has been. However, the market is much bigger, with more customers, so there's a lot of different genres to chose from. You're almost saying, "I like turn-based, so all RPGs should be turn-based." I appreciate it's an appalling paraphrase, but you get the drift - it's unfair to expect all people to enjoy how you like to play.
So you still get your games that you want to, and so do they. You will sometimes be dissapointed (as you were with Tales) but that's true of anything you get - sometimes you get a car you don't like, etc.
Dwarf Fortress
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/help/main.html
ACSII graphics, but fun strategy game.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/help/main.html
ACSII graphics, but fun strategy game.
# posted by : 27/7/07 06:28
: 27/7/07 06:28
Yes, your actions are in real-time, but the mechanics of combat are "turn based" in the sense of global cooldowns, cast times, swing times, etc.
Those aren't 'turns', they are more mechanics of resource management.
It's just that your turn happens at the same time as everyone else's turn, and they overlap.
I think that's close to the definition of 'real time'.
Seriously, WoW does not have turn-based combat.
Those aren't 'turns', they are more mechanics of resource management.
It's just that your turn happens at the same time as everyone else's turn, and they overlap.
I think that's close to the definition of 'real time'.
Seriously, WoW does not have turn-based combat.
# posted by : 27/7/07 08:32
: 27/7/07 08:32
If the game allowed you a certain amount of "moves" before a specific time frame and then computed your outcome at the end. Then your opponent did the same, taking turns, this is pretty generic turn based gameplay.
Now if you were to both take your turns at the same time, have the same structure of moves in a certain amount of time and then the outcome gets calculated at the end, could you still call it turn based? I think so.. and this could mildly describe what your doing when you play a Battleground on WoW.
The action/reaction part was always on turnbased or twitch gameplay, but the emphasis might vary based on what the opponent does, versus what is available in the environment. So you might say the twitch base games flow off of interaction and the turnbased games flow off decisions based from the environments/factors your working with.
It is a slight difference but you will definatly have a preference on which is more suited to your gameplay style.
Now if you were to both take your turns at the same time, have the same structure of moves in a certain amount of time and then the outcome gets calculated at the end, could you still call it turn based? I think so.. and this could mildly describe what your doing when you play a Battleground on WoW.
The action/reaction part was always on turnbased or twitch gameplay, but the emphasis might vary based on what the opponent does, versus what is available in the environment. So you might say the twitch base games flow off of interaction and the turnbased games flow off decisions based from the environments/factors your working with.
It is a slight difference but you will definatly have a preference on which is more suited to your gameplay style.
Yea, cooldowns don't really define whether a game's turn based or not. If you really want to scrutinize it, all games have such cooldowns, even if it's a fast paced game. In WoW, when you hit that frostbolt button, your GCD sets off a 1.5 sec delay and your spell takes 2.5 secs to go off. In a fast paced fighting game like say, Tekken, you hit punch and your character is set to a 9 frame delay in which you can't act either. There are plenty of people who will argue that fighting games have "turns" too, a player with frame advantage will choose an attack and the defender will choice an escape/counter. Depending on what they chose they can then switch roles. There is surprisingly small twitch factors at high level play, and more mindgames at high level play, not unlike WoW.
# posted by : 28/7/07 04:18
: 28/7/07 04:18
Ever tried the Flash-based MMO called Dofus? It has turn-based combat. They've "attracted 3 million players worldwide", however you want to understand that. I gave it a brief go couple of years ago, and was driven away by some technical problems and my perception of the game as another huge grind.
The same developers have another MMO coming out within something like 6 months or so, called Wakfu. It's set in the same world as Dofus with the same 12 character classes, but otherwise changes some things that wouldn't please all of the current Dofus players. What got me interested was that they seem to be changing some things I didn't like and looking back to Ultima Online and/or MUDs in a time when most AAA quality MMO titles won't dare to risk it.
Both Dofus and Wakfu are played from isometric point of view. The latter will have 3d-accelerated (which Dofus as Flash-based couldn't do) but otherwise quite similar graphics. Wakfu will also have a freely scrolling world view, unlike the room-based like Dofus, MUDs, old Zelda-games and such. Crafting seems to be quite diverse and players can cut down trees and farm in the persistent world. Character (stat/skill) progression is based on the actions you take.
If I appear a little overly enthusiastic, it's because I learned about Wakfu just today. There are so many very different games (especially MMOs) in development right now that I'm interested. It is (or will be) a great time to be a gamer, hehe.
I'm sure there must be other MMORPGs with turn-based combat out there. I just can't think of any others, not counting squad-based MMORTS or stuff like that.
The same developers have another MMO coming out within something like 6 months or so, called Wakfu. It's set in the same world as Dofus with the same 12 character classes, but otherwise changes some things that wouldn't please all of the current Dofus players. What got me interested was that they seem to be changing some things I didn't like and looking back to Ultima Online and/or MUDs in a time when most AAA quality MMO titles won't dare to risk it.
Both Dofus and Wakfu are played from isometric point of view. The latter will have 3d-accelerated (which Dofus as Flash-based couldn't do) but otherwise quite similar graphics. Wakfu will also have a freely scrolling world view, unlike the room-based like Dofus, MUDs, old Zelda-games and such. Crafting seems to be quite diverse and players can cut down trees and farm in the persistent world. Character (stat/skill) progression is based on the actions you take.
If I appear a little overly enthusiastic, it's because I learned about Wakfu just today. There are so many very different games (especially MMOs) in development right now that I'm interested. It is (or will be) a great time to be a gamer, hehe.
I'm sure there must be other MMORPGs with turn-based combat out there. I just can't think of any others, not counting squad-based MMORTS or stuff like that.
# posted by : 28/7/07 16:42
: 28/7/07 16:42
Now if you were to both take your turns at the same time, have the same structure of moves in a certain amount of time and then the outcome gets calculated at the end, could you still call it turn based? I think so.
The outcome is not calculated at the 'end', whatever you mean by that, there are continual calculations based on decisions being made by the players. The combat in WoW is real-time, it is not turn-based.
You can make it turn-based by changing the definition of what 'turn-based' means, which is what people are trying to do here, for some reason trying to defend Tobold's wrong idea, but that doesn't make it so.
Hey, in Unreal Tournament, everyone acts at the same time, you have 'cool-downs' on weapons as they fire at different rates, and everything gets calculated at the 'end'. I guess that's turn-based combat too, huh?
The outcome is not calculated at the 'end', whatever you mean by that, there are continual calculations based on decisions being made by the players. The combat in WoW is real-time, it is not turn-based.
You can make it turn-based by changing the definition of what 'turn-based' means, which is what people are trying to do here, for some reason trying to defend Tobold's wrong idea, but that doesn't make it so.
Hey, in Unreal Tournament, everyone acts at the same time, you have 'cool-downs' on weapons as they fire at different rates, and everything gets calculated at the 'end'. I guess that's turn-based combat too, huh?
# posted by : 29/7/07 13:20
: 29/7/07 13:20
Well, however you call it, WoW combat is not twitchy. You can't do more damage by clicking faster. And the time you have to choose your next move is relatively long.
My first comment, right up there at the top: 'The global cool-down [is] an intentional slowing down of real-time combat to reduce issues that could be caused by latency and to stop combat from being a 'twitch' game.'
# posted by : 29/7/07 17:29
: 29/7/07 17:29
Translating ideas spawned from PnP D&D has always been a problem in the traditional sense of MMO development. Or so it would seem.
Blizzard’s combat system is about the most perfect form of function that I can think of where large group PvE/PvP encounters are concerned.
Now, if we’re talking getting rid of the raid centric(large group) design approach, then yes, I would say anything is possible.
But how much fun would it really be to play in a situation where scripting is at a minimum?
If you really wanted to make a change in how MMO's were made, the technology exists to allow for the creation of on zone-in, dynamically generated instances, instead of the current static implementations we now have to face.
And to be honest, that's the biggest complaint I think I hear most often from people about the end game content.
Post a Comment
Blizzard’s combat system is about the most perfect form of function that I can think of where large group PvE/PvP encounters are concerned.
Now, if we’re talking getting rid of the raid centric(large group) design approach, then yes, I would say anything is possible.
But how much fun would it really be to play in a situation where scripting is at a minimum?
If you really wanted to make a change in how MMO's were made, the technology exists to allow for the creation of on zone-in, dynamically generated instances, instead of the current static implementations we now have to face.
And to be honest, that's the biggest complaint I think I hear most often from people about the end game content.
# posted by : 31/7/07 13:15
: 31/7/07 13:15<< Home
