[Fyron]

Originally posted by klausD:

quote:

---

It is because some people have an unfounded fear of anything mentioning the phrase "real-time". They see C&C and Warcraft/Starcraft and think that is all that real-time is. They do not realize the possibilities, and how pauseable real-time (where you can issue as many orders and view whatever you want while the combat is paused) is better for combat than any turn-based system.

Not at all, sorry. The problem is not the "understanding". Its the "not accepting". I do understand the concepts of real time, and I played not only command and conquer. I tested many real time games (even pausables like SFB etc.)

What you do not "understand" is that EVERY kind of real time game, if pausable or not, favors action to thinking. I am not willing to play a game in which it is important if I hit the mouse button at the correct second just to give some orders before he does the same a second later. And if he dont press his mouse button because he is thinking too slow, he will be annihilated. Very funny. This is not the game I want to play.

If you like to play games where it is important at which time I am hitting the mouse button play one of the myriad "4x" real time games out there. But dont try to convert one of the few remaining fortresses of good turnbased gaming, the SE series to trendy realtime. (trendy for me because I am playing games, computer and board, since 20 years now, and I was observing the upcoming of the real time mania first handed)

The problem is that pro real time opinions like yours (which are of course as valid as mine from a neutral point of view) are signalizing Aaron that its ok if he do SE5 with a Rt-tactical engine (instead of letting it as it is) Of course somebody (like me) has to do something against such lobbying.

tschüß
Klaus

---

I still stand by my statement that you do not understand properly. I will try to alleviate your confusion.

There have not been many games that implemented real time properly. If the SE4 combat were taken and made into real time instead of purely turn based, it would still function exactly the same, except that the absurdities of turn-based combat are gone. A speed scale will easily allow you to slow it down enough to eliminate any alleged focus on "action instead of thinking".

I personally hate RTS games. They are not strategy games, but tactical games. It is not hard to create a real time engine for SE5 that makes combat exactly like SE4, except without the stupid quirks that only appear by having disjointed movement and firing phases. Real time would essentially be identical to se4 combat, except the turn processing is done in real time, instead of one ship, one weapon at a time. This is in no way a bad thing. Pause after a few seconds, issue new orders. There is no focus on "action instead of thinking" unless you make combat have a really fast pace.

It has absolutely nothing to do with fitting some hyped up RTS phase. It has everything to do with making combat balanced and more realistic, and eliminating all of the problems of all turn based combat systems. You can not ever get rid of them, except by making the impulse phases continuous. Real time combat is essentially a turn based combat system that has lots of impulse phases each turn, but has those phases continuous instead of segmented.

Real time does not equal pop-culture RTS games. The two things are not similar in any way.

glad to hear that there is somebody out there which is also very informed about serious games. (maybe there are more at this forum, but they are probably not posting )

I am going to have to ask you to stop wrongly associating the term real time with "unserious games". This only hurts your case (and by quite a bit). Using a proper real time system in no way makes a game not "serious". Again, RTS is not all you can do with a real time engine. This is why I said you do not understand; you have constantly and consistently confused this issue.

[ March 22, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]