Why do people enjoy RTwP (Real-Time with Pause) combat ?

Which combat (timing) system do you prefer?

  • Turn-based

    Votes: 17 54.8%
  • Real-time

    Votes: 3 9.7%
  • Real-Time with Pause

    Votes: 7 22.6%
  • I don't care, they're all fun!

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • I hate combat. Give me an adventure game now!

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31
Fnord hit the nail on the head:
For me, real time with pause is pretty much the best of two worlds (for party-based games):
With pure real time, you can't really take your time, plan and give detailed orders to the party, and things that are not easily accessible right away don't get used much. This is for an example why I never bothered using any spells in Ultima 7, it meant digging through the spellbok in combat, and that was just annoying to do.

On the other hand, with turnbased, you need to constantly give orders to your characters, even if it's just "do what you did last turn". This can make fights rather tedious, where I just end up constantly giving the "attack" command to my party members.

With real time with pause, the game don't need to ask you when it's a characters turn, the characters will keep doing what you order them to do, until you give them a new order. And when you do want the characters to act a certain way (you want to tell them to cast certain spells, or position the party in a specific way), you can just pause the game and do it. Menu diving is also a lot less tedious when you don't need to worry about a pure real time element.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,583
Location
Bergen
The "ugoIgo" sequence was a model to start with, when people had to start from somewhere.
Later, it appears that the model comes with strong limitations to enable the use of tactics.

Many, many points but one is that the "ugoigo" sequence dismisses the very motive of using tactics and reverse the proposition that comes with the use of tactics.

Tactics aim at denying ground to the enemy, gaining for itself so that your forces can express at full capacity.

One example: aimed shot, sniper thing.
Even/especially a very well trained sniper will consider twice aiming a shot at a machine gun when full in the open. When the sniper manages to secure a proper location then aiming shots is viable.

That is because the sniper ability expression depends on the tactical advantage he manages to secure itself. Hence the relationship between denying ground etc

"ugoIgo" sequence: the ability is made intrinsic to the unit. Then a sniper might be able to aim shot wherever the location, in front of a machine gun or from a blind spot.

That is the dismissal of the very reason to be of tactics: when the sniper must use tactics to express her capabilities at full force, the "ugoigo" sequence reverses the proposition: when in tactics, troops are nothing special until they are brought to the proper locations, in "ugoigo" sequence, the units are all special no matter the location.

Here's one state among others.

"ugoIgo" does not support the use of tactics. For some reason, players prefer calling games that make the use of tactics optional tactical games.

It does not mean though that some other sequences do not support tactics.
Do they automatically support them? No but they can.

When having to choose between a sequence that might support tactics and another that cant support tactics, and when aiming at playing a tactical game, the answer to the question is not that easy to find.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Hey, where's the turn based / real time hybrid option? Like Last Remnant or better yet the Shadow Hearts series? ;)

I like turn based most and real time least but there are plenty of real time combat games I like a lot so I guess it isn't that big of a deal for me. Come to think of it, having a good mix of games with all three systems is ideal.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
You all make good points.

I think Zloth's last point rings true. It's good to have choices in gaming.

The reason I brought this up is that for me, it felt so artificial.

My unit was just standing there doing nothing until the action bar filled up again, so it still was turn based, except that I had to pause to give orders to multiple people.

I understand your viewpoints, but I disagree that you can "watch the action unfold" in RTwP.

It's just a fast turn-based combat really. At least that's how it feels to me.

I'm having trouble finding a game with combat I like lately.

I find The Witcher too twitchy and NWN2 too artificial.

Poor me :(
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I understand your viewpoints, but I disagree that you can "watch the action unfold" in RTwP.

It's just a fast turn-based combat really. At least that's how it feels to me.
The important bit to me is that you don't have to give constant orders to your party when all you want them to do is attack. I find combat tedious when I just hit the the same key over and over again to get my party to do exactly the same thing.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
1,756
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
The important bit to me is that you don't have to give constant orders to your party when all you want them to do is attack. I find combat tedious when I just hit the the same key over and over again to get my party to do exactly the same thing.

That would mean however that the combat is probably not as tactical as it should be in the first place in my opinion.

For example, in Fallout, you could aim for the legs, eyes, head, arms or do a normal shot.

I loved playing around with that as it meant the opponents got knocked down or couldn't shoot me for example.

If all you're doing is spamming the attack button, you might as well be playing Diablo and have it go real time then.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,177
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
I had almost clicked "turn based", when I saw that "adventure" answer ... :lol:
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,908
Location
Old Europe
That would mean however that the combat is probably not as tactical as it should be in the first place in my opinion.

For example, in Fallout, you could aim for the legs, eyes, head, arms or do a normal shot.

I loved playing around with that as it meant the opponents got knocked down or couldn't shoot me for example.

If all you're doing is spamming the attack button, you might as well be playing Diablo and have it go real time then.

Fallout is a single character game though. The issue I personally have with turnbased is when you have a party, and you just want certain characters to keep attacking, like in say the Goldbox games, Wizardry or Temple of Elemental Evil.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
1,756
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Fallout can also be party-based should you choose to acquire the services of certain companions. (Ian, Katja, Tycho, Dogmeat...)

I think it's clear we all have our preferences; real-time with pause can more easily break up the monotony for simpler fights and serve to move the action forward more quickly if encounters lack the need for specific tactics.

The micro-management possible for instance in the Infinity Engine games is large and when tactics work in real time with pause systems in larger fights (I'm thinking Throne of Bhaal, BG2 dragon fights) the sense of satisfaction when a tactical concept works is very great indeed. :)

I enjoy both combat systems and though I lean towards turn-based, I can certainly see the rationale for preferring real-time with pause.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,974
Location
Australia
Fallout can also be party-based should you choose to acquire the services of certain companions. (Ian, Katja, Tycho, Dogmeat…).

I still consider the Fallout games to be single-character as you have no direct control over your companions at any time. They're basically just AI controlled henchmen.

I'd love to see FO 1&2 get remade with modern visuals and full party control.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
Yeah i'd pay for that!

Perhaps something Beamdog could do in the future? :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,468
I think Zloth's last point rings true. It's good to have choices in gaming.
GG already mentioned the M&M series as another example. Arcanum also comes to mind.

For me, all systems rise and fall according to how well they are implemented. RTwP can shine when done well. It feels more like a real battle when combined with a tactical battlefield setup (like RT), while giving you options for real tactics (like TB). It's just hard to implement well, both from the side of the developer, who has to make sure that the characters actually follow orders and provide an interesting level design, and from the side of the player, who needs to juggle more information at once than in any other combat system.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
804
Location
Austria
I thought I liked RTWP.

I think I was just so eager for a new ADND game in the late 90s that I'd have been happy with anything.

After playing the Pillars of Eternity backer beta I realised I pretty much hate it?

Then I tried to play BG2:EE with a 4 man party in a co-op game and could see why we usually play just 1 character each. Didn't even make it out of the (worst part in the game, granted.) newbie dungeon.

ATM I'd say anything with a party is better turnbased, like the classic ADND trilogys .
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,974
Location
Australia
Back
Top Bottom