Not logged in, Join Here! or Log In Below:  
 
News Articles Search    
 

 Home / Game Design & Programming / Turn-based Games Suck Account Manager
 
Archive Notice: This thread is old and no longer active. It is here for reference purposes. This thread was created on an older version of the flipcode forums, before the site closed in 2005. Please keep that in mind as you view this thread, as many of the topics and opinions may be outdated.
 
Chris

May 19, 2005, 01:04 PM

I'd award myself the title of an unsuccessful addict. I play the game regularly, but I'm not really good.

Judging from the YAAPs on r.g.r.n, many people are dedicated and patient enough to ascend with their character.

I find myself playing too hasty, I always die because I did something outright silly, or because I didn't think over all the options I had, before acting.
So I didn't get really far myself. I played the Mines, Sokoban, the Big Room, and I got down pretty deep once or twice, before I lost oversight and died quickly.

There's still very much in the game I don't know, and that is what makes it worth playing for me: Any other game can be understood and mastered after some hours of gameplay, not so with NetHack.

 
LastInquisitor

May 19, 2005, 01:33 PM

Corre vs. DonJuan - 13 : 0
"MO-MO-MO-MO-MONSTER KILL"

Actually, this thread is a good example of a really cool turn-based game :o)

 
Chris

May 19, 2005, 01:41 PM

I can generalize all I want.


Of course you can. You gave sufficient proof to that. But don't expect sympathy in turn.

 
Paulus

May 19, 2005, 02:53 PM

i think DonJuan is not trolling but instead trying to stir up this thread by being a jerk. Anyway, the best turn based game of all time has to be chess! the outcome of a game of chess depends totally on your ability to make good positional moves and combinations and exploit your opponent's mistakes. There is very little luck involved. In a FPS game like Counter-strike, there are a lot of factors involved that are beyond your control (lag, teammates, fps drops, etc.) and even a pro can get killed by a newbie camping behind a crate. Personally, I like to have full control over a game. The drawback is that you can't blame anyone else if you lose :)

 
Dan Fekete

May 19, 2005, 03:31 PM



LastInquisitor wrote: Actually, this thread is a good example of a really cool turn-based game :o)


LOL!! Absolutely true. Did someone already mentioned Master Of Orion. Actually I've played days and nights with that game! Civilization, Fallout, Worms ... very very addictive games. I also _like_ FPS (and real-time) games.

 
DonJuan

May 19, 2005, 04:13 PM

Jesus, how long can we go? Let's see...

Paulus is indeed right; I'm not just some dick trying to troll you all. Can't we have opinions that piss off a major portion of the developer community? Why get so defensive?

The point, which almost ALL of you are missing, is that turns are unnecessary. Unnecessary in video games, because of the current almighty CPU. NetHack and all those games are okay, I guess, but that's because they're from an era when turns were needed. Not that NetHack is even a turn-based game, but whatever. I'm saying that video games, NOT chess, owe it to players to be better than that, to be closer to reality and everything visceral. Because they CAN be.

Oh, and ServantOfTheCode (and his AWESOME name) can blow me.

 
Vast

May 19, 2005, 04:21 PM

Let the troll starve.

Over.

Tim

 
Steven Hansen

May 19, 2005, 05:48 PM

Games ---

Are games.

Not RL.

I don't want your RL in my game. You owe it to me to stay away from the game development industry. Take your reality with you.

 
theAntiELVIS

May 19, 2005, 07:41 PM

Turns can be very necessary.

Try doing a game that involves an entire galaxy of 1000 stars, with 10,000 planets, with 100,000 units, and 32 player factions, in real time.

It can't be done. Not only would any CPU be unable to process that much in real time, but no human being could keep up with everything that is going on.

Yet such a game world is very possible in a turn based game, and there are turn based games with worlds that complex.

And they can be fun. Micromanagement nuts love that kind of stuff.

 
Lachlan Littlemore

May 20, 2005, 01:35 AM

They're not missing the point mate. Turn-based games aren't so because the CPU couldn't handle it or because they were ports of board games (which is the meaning I'm getting from your comment). Turn-based games are this way because that's the best way for the game to work. Imagine trying to play a game of Starcraft when you're controlling 50 bases and have over 10,000 units under your command. You just couldn't do it all in real-time.

The main purpose of TB seems to be simulating control of very large numbers of units, or making decisions that require a large amount of thought to get the best outcome. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to "put the polygon-guy in the crosshair and press fire". Not that these games aren't fun, but some ppl just want a different challenge than being Rambo for the 50,000th time. Real-time games can be a great escape, but sometimes you just have to come down off the sugar-high and realise that you've got ADD.

 
This thread contains 40 messages.
First Previous ( To view more messages, select a page: 0 1 ... out of 1) Next Last
 
 
Hosting by Solid Eight Studios, maker of PhotoTangler Collage Maker.